Am 29.11.2013 16:31, schrieb Tod Fitch: > On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> >> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> 2013/11/17> The definition given for the landuse-polygon seems too >>> restrictive, I'd >>> ditch the second part "are constructed up to a boundary or barrier >>> separating this land from private property." >>> (Because there doesn't have to be private property along a road, and >>> neither there will always be boundaries or barriers). >> >> In Massachusetts, there is essentially always a lot boundary adjacent to >> a "highway" (which means a legal road). Sometimes those lots are owned >> by the government. But there's a very clear notion of "being within >> the the land allocated to the roadway" which is much wider than the >> pavement.
German roads are built similar. But usually this is not dependent on stuff like property. Usually land owners are forced to fit onto the local prescriptions. So maybe a ditch is part of the property of a private person, but part of the street. Barriers are already part of the property. I would welcome landuse=highway from the view that there are tons of mappers at Germany who map landuse-areas onto road-nodes - which is totally unacceptable for me. On the other hand I am against a landuse=road, because it will encourage mappers to map highway=track surrounded by an area of landuse=road, instead of mapping rivers and streams in the close neighbourhood. For landuse=residential for example such a landuse=road tag is not necessary in my opinion. The next thing is: How will you applicate such a tagging? Multipolygons or tons of smaller polygons? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
