https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
I don't think it's useful to change the landuse for single buildings. The school on the eastern part would need another landuse and so on. And what about e.g. supermarkets? Are they built in residential areas or in commercial areas?
Well I think landuse=residential is very confusing for both the monastery & the school. Is the school connected to the monastery (e.g., are the teachers monks). Normally I would map the school as an area with building=school & that doesn't require any landuse tags. Normally I'd put supermarkets (not convenience stores) as landuse=retail. The area to W of school doesnt look like residential area either.
I'd consider landuse=residential as "we're in the village right now". I don't think landuses at the size of a single building are useful, since one could also use the building outline as landuse area directly without requiring the user to draw an additional landuse area.
That being said it's imo also not useful to draw small residential areas like this. But I think this boils down to the old discussion landuse vs. landcover, since it's small meadows and forests that separate the landuse=residential areas here. I don't think these notes are the proper way to discuss such issues so I'd say tag as you wish and as the local community wants to.