OpenStreetMap
What is it with these people who glue landuse=residential to a convenient road, and then butt another landuse=residential alongside it, also glued, so that you get three ways sharing the long sequence of nodes ?
If you have two adjoining landuses the same, then you just make it one big area, the union of the two small ones, right ?
If the road in question is not residential, is it supposed to have lu=r areas on either side of it (the interpretation that I've chosen in this particular unpicking) or does the road simply go "through" a big lu=r ?
Discussion
Comment from Unusual User Name on 29 August 2011 at 23:29
I would never run a landuse boundary down a road centreline, and I’m not unique in this. There are two reasons for this, it’s a nightmare to edit later in Potlatch (I can’t vouch for other editors), and the roadway is not landuse=residential. If it had a landuse it would landuse=road. The roadway is a public right of way, but land parcels in a residential area are privately owned.
I would only place a road over a residential boundary if it was a private road, such as in a gated community.
An example of how I choose to do it is here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.492532&lon=153.024219&zoom=18&layers=M
Comment from Rovastar on 30 August 2011 at 00:31
I haven't seen landuse to a road. I don't consider this to be normal practice.
I have seen and use block of the same land use together but when if the land use is named.
However I do see and use larger areas to residential use (i.e not just block and with roads running through it)
Comment from emj on 30 August 2011 at 07:42
landuse=forest on deep forret road, might be correct? Very often the forrest actually extend over the centerline from both sides.
Comment from emj on 30 August 2011 at 07:42
landuse=forest on deep forret road, might be correct? Very often the forrest actually extend over the centerline from both sides.
Comment from chriscf on 30 August 2011 at 16:01
It's arguable that you want the landuse= to move with the road if it is moved in future, so gluing the areas either side to the road does make sense (though not gluing the areas to the road also makes sense, for different reasons). There's an argument to be had about having separate landuse= for separate "areas" when each has its own name, which presumably can also be tagged with place= or addressing attributes, Or Something[TM].
Comment from Sundance on 30 August 2011 at 18:30
El Segundo I agree with you totally.
Comment from compdude on 1 September 2011 at 22:32
I agree with "El Segundo can't win," it can create a total editing nightmare when landuse boundaries are joined with roads. Same with parks, cemeteries, golf courses, etc. But you can make landuse tags extend over both sides of the road if you're mapping a something like a big housing development, shopping center, or business/ industrial park/ company headquarters--anything that is actually named. Also agree with "emj" entirely, landuse=forest can extend over both sides of a road that's in a big forested area.
Comment from inas on 2 September 2011 at 05:50
If potlatch can't handle it well, well isn't that an issue for potlatch?
As long as the landuse extends to the very edge of the road, with no gap in between the landuse and the road, then placing a gap isn't mapping what is on the ground.
Similarly when a park extends to the edge of the water..
Comment from Wynndale on 2 September 2011 at 12:28
To make this clear, this post is about landuse polygons that extend beyond the edge of the land they represent to the middle of the road (or the middle of the carriageway), where the road has been mapped as a single line.