Talk:How to map landuse

Landuses stop at road edges

@How_to_map_landuse#Highways_as_outer_and_inner

But: landuses do not extent to the middle of a road ... they stop at the road edges. Landuses would be too big with this method. --Aseerel4c26

Your statement implies the usage of landuse=street. Is this your intention? --Cracklinrain

Not necessarily, I think no landuse is fine - that is what I usually do if a street is in-between two different landuse areas. Also see Frederik Ramm's comment from today. If one wants to map the landuse=street the street can be added as area (like it is done with big rivers). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: I just commented in the normal page since that is way easier (added like a "fixme). ;-) And could have been fixed by some clarifying comment of the page authors - apparently not this time. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have a proposal which states one of the methods. I actually just used the highway method experimentally nad for bigger streets I left the area blank or drawed another line along the street. I also think that the relation street is not supported by mapnik - but this should not be a reason to reject the highway solution. I would welcome a good solution to map every area which is used with landuse.

Your statement that we do the same with rivers is very true and respective to that point it would be clean and consistent to have landuse=street and not landuse=residential or else at those spots. But to which extend? Does every street have to be mapped with an landuse area or just the bigger ones? Or another solution?--Cracklinrain (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many people who don't care about proposals in the wiki. :-P I think the wikipage should clarify what it is. If it should be documenting the current use in the osm.org database it should mention all the methods, mention their pros and cons and try to specify the popularity of each method. If it should rather be a personal wish how to map something it should be a subpage of a user page or at least be clearly titled and have a note about that in the beginning. I am not sure what this page should be (what the authors mean it to be), currently. For that reason I had also but the see also note in the beginning of the page (also like a "fixme"). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. Since this page is not a proposal, it should describe all mapping-methods which are possible regarding the proposals and discuss them. Actually my deeper wish is that there is a mapping technic which is common sense and to refuse a few. Why don't we have a proposal which explicitly allows to use the nodes of streets to map landuse or the opposite? And what should be following are some examples for mapping technics. We also could need some tidy up, since there are too few explicit statements regarding landuse at schools - wether the amenity area has to be excluded from landuse=residential or not. etc

There is no right or wrong, the question is which abstractions you choose to create a meaningful representation of things you want to map. If you are able to interprete a geometrical line as a road then it should not be too hard to interprete two polygons separated by a line as two landuse areas divided by a road, either. So personally I prefer more topology oriented mapping instead of landscape painting.--j3d (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)