OpenStreetMap
Mapping gated communities in Marseilles
Posted by Jeremy G on 27 March 2010 in English. Last updated on 28 March 2010.Mapping the gated communities of Marseilles from cadastre and my own field (did an inventory through the whole city for my master's study). I'd rather call it "enclosed residential areas", as the term "gated community" refers to a complex system. Here i'm talking about residential areas, enclosed but not necessarily guarded.
As for now the formula is as simple as :
barrier=gate at the entrance
landuse=residential
access=private for the roads
Got to check again the wiki, I remember some proposal about a "gated community" tag (which looks useless for me, except maybe to refer to a significant complexity in the enclosure and social system. You won't find a lot of them in France).
Discussion
Comment from JohnSmith on 28 March 2010 at 03:33
I've been mapping gated communities more or less the same way, although I don't bother with landuse tags, I do use barrier=fence instead...
Comment from Jeremy G on 28 March 2010 at 09:32
Yeah I thought about using just fence, or wall (depending on the situation), but I don't know how to name the places without a landuse tag...
Comment from ToniE on 28 March 2010 at 16:28
I use the same:
"landuse=residential" and "name=xxx"
and sometimes instead of that (if area inside a residential landuse)
"area=yes" and "name=xxx"
Comment from Jeremy G on 28 March 2010 at 17:52
area=yes & name=xxx sounds interesting to include the community into a larger residential area. It allows to avoid the creation of several contiguous areas with complex contours...
On the other side, I don't know if the multiplication of objects in the database (eg 2 area
it multiplies the areas (so the objects in the database, not sure it is a "good practice".
Comment from Jeremy G on 28 March 2010 at 17:57
Oops, too fast :/
I wonder if it's not better to avoid the multiplication of superimposed areas, if it's just to get a name displayed. But it also allows to clearly materialize the community... Got to check on tagwatch about this :)
Comment from Jeremy G on 28 March 2010 at 18:02
(Update : i added a link to the map for illustration. It's "Le Roucas Plage" at the center of the map)
Comment from ToniE on 29 March 2010 at 12:49
What's "landuse=residential" for me?
Well, an area where there are predominantly houses, where people live.
It does not imply any administrative or other structure to my.
It can even stretch over several villages that are close to each other.
The boundary of a single village/city/... or community should not be
mapped by landuse=xxx, name=yyy.
Please have a look at: where I mapped an
area=yes, name="Wasserschutzwald Deisenhofen" in a forest (protected
area for water supply of Munich). barrier=fence is a different way that
uses the same nodes as the area.
But I also have a different example: 5 * landuse=residential, name=xxx
And I'm thinking about a single landuse (joined with the rest at the buttom)
with 5 * area=yes, name=xxx
Let's think also about: a community that includes residential, retail and forest
landuses inside their boundary. An area with name="Community of ..." including
these and maybe also boundary=civil and border_type=???.
BR
Toni
Comment from ToniE on 29 March 2010 at 12:52
Oops: links were delete (caused by $lt; and $gt; around it?)
1.) http://osm.org/go/0JAwSt0h
2.) http://osm.org/go/0JAzUbhkG-
Comment from Jeremy G on 5 April 2010 at 07:11
After reading a couple of pages about landuse and residential, i think i pretty much agree with the
"area=yes
name=xxx"
option. The information about the landuse should actually be differenciated.
The issue remains to be able to distinguish the limits of the "community", all the more if it is physically closed : sometimes it's possible to map the "border" as it is clearly delimited, but sometimes only the gate is visible and the rest of the border is not...