On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com> wrote: > Residential isn't exclusive at all. Not to say that what it's actually used > for in OSM can have different meanings amongst different mappers. You'll find > many parks in OSM for example inside a residential polygon. I've never seen > holes in a landuse=residential polygon at locations where shops are. By far > most uses I've seen for landuse=residential are for areas which are generally > used for where people live, and usually have entire villages or cities inside > one polygon. That's not ground cover, that's telling what the area is used > for. > > Proper ground cover would have no such thing as a "residential area". It would > have tags for "building" (and subtags for what kind of building it is), or > "garden".
Well then "ground cover" isn't what we need. We need "land use". Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to get down to the parcel level, or even more detailed. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
