Residential areas

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Residential areas

Tom Chance-2
Ahoy,

How are people marking up residential areas, now that we seem to be moving
away from abutters?

Most of St Albans is, of course, residential, with a few areas for retail,
industry, commerce etc. stuck around it.

Should I just make a whacking great big residential area for the whole city,
then overlay other areas on that?

Or should I make a crazy, winding big area that traces around the other areas?

Or should I make quite a few smaller residential areas that are bounded
arbitrarily so that they aren't too enormous, and fit around other areas.

What are others doing?

Regards,
Tom

--
The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting
 - Kundera

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
80n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

80n
Tom
I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of highway=residential (on the basis that highway=residential is synonymous with, and just a shortcut equivalent of, highway=unclassified, abutters=residential).  I then create a way with landuse=residential, to surround all the residential roads in an area. 

I'm still experimenting with making one big area vs. lots of smaller areas.  I think there is a happy medium somewhere.

I think it makes sense not to make a single residential area for a whole city or town.  It would also be a bit silly to make a residential area for each individual street.


Currently the best balance for me seems to be to use natural boundaries, such as main roads, as the edges of residential areas.

If there is a main street with shops along it and then residential streets behind, I would draw a thin strip tagged with landuse=retail  and then fill in behind with a non-overlapping area tagged landuse=residential.  So two landuse areas will abut each other, but not overlap.

If you make a very large area then you might have pockets of retail areas inside the residential area.  This requires that retail is always rendered after residential.  But then what if you have a small residential area within a large retail area?  Pushing the retail area to the back with layer=-1 would work in this case, and it is a relatively uncommon occurrence.  But intuitively, I don't think it would be very desirable to have two areas with different landuse tags overlapping each other.

80n



On 10/31/06, Tom Chance <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ahoy,

How are people marking up residential areas, now that we seem to be moving
away from abutters?

Most of St Albans is, of course, residential, with a few areas for retail,
industry, commerce etc. stuck around it.

Should I just make a whacking great big residential area for the whole city,
then overlay other areas on that?

Or should I make a crazy, winding big area that traces around the other areas?

Or should I make quite a few smaller residential areas that are bounded
arbitrarily so that they aren't too enormous, and fit around other areas.

What are others doing?

Regards,
Tom

--
The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting
- Kundera

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

randomjunk
In reply to this post by Tom Chance-2
I think smaller areas are probably better. Layering of landuse areas is conceptually wrong -- it would mark areas as residential even though they weren't: it might work on a particular renderer, but other applications might not like it (ie: a program trying to calculate the area covered by residential housing). The only time this would be right is where you actually have one on top of the other... ie highstreet shops with flats on top.
Also ways covering large areas are difficult to edit as data gets packed in around them, plus I think the current API map algorithm might not return a way if none of the points are in the area you request, as would happen with a city wide area when looking at, say, just the centre.

Personally, doing mapping in London, I'd limit the area size to that bounded by a main road, ie: a secondary or primary. It's completely arbitary, but makes sense for the kinds of maps likely to be produced and isn't too fiddly as marking in an area for every street would be. But again, I'd try and avoid covering an area twice, so go round the edges of parks, sports fields, commercial or retail districts etc.
TBH I'm still using abutters... can go back and fix them when I'm bored and it's too cold or wet to collect new data.

On 10/31/06, Tom Chance < [hidden email]> wrote:
Ahoy,

How are people marking up residential areas, now that we seem to be moving
away from abutters?

Most of St Albans is, of course, residential, with a few areas for retail,
industry, commerce etc. stuck around it.

Should I just make a whacking great big residential area for the whole city,
then overlay other areas on that?

Or should I make a crazy, winding big area that traces around the other areas?

Or should I make quite a few smaller residential areas that are bounded
arbitrarily so that they aren't too enormous, and fit around other areas.

What are others doing?

Regards,
Tom

--
The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting
- Kundera

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Andy Allan
On 10/31/06, Dave <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think smaller areas are probably better. Layering of landuse areas is conceptually wrong [...snip...] highstreet shops with flats on top.

So it's conceptually possible, then? However, I would leave it completely in the hands of the renderer to work out what's going on, unless you want to tag layer=1 on the residential because the residential *really actually is* above the commercial.

TBH I'm still using abutters... can go back and fix them when I'm bored and it's too cold or wet to collect new data.

Ah, but we've been using highway=residential around Putney, rather than abutters=residential or even landuse=residential. But I agree with letting *you* sort that out sometime, I'll concentrate on gathering gps data and drinking beer...

Andy

(Dave and I work together on lots of the mapping, btw!)



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Steve Coast
In reply to this post by 80n
* @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM [hidden email] wrote:
> Tom
> I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of

Is this not illogical? (eg, it _is_ classified) can we not keep
highway=residential but just drop the abutters?

have fun,

SteveC [hidden email] http://www.asklater.com/steve/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

matthew-osm
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:40:26PM +0000, SteveC wrote:
> * @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM [hidden email] wrote:
> > Tom
> > I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of
>
> Is this not illogical? (eg, it _is_ classified) can we not keep
> highway=residential but just drop the abutters?

I agree.

Generally residential roads are not classified (they are C-prefix roads, which
are county-wide, not country-wide, allocated). Having said that, I have started
to use the landuse= tag, but still leave housing estates as highway=residential.

If nothing else, it will be useful for route-planning software in the future
(i.e. back-route through unclassified roads in the country may be OK, but
shortcut through a housing estate is less desireable).

I think I would vote (eventually) for the removal of the osmarender
abutters-type colouring from residential roads (that have not got the abutters
tag). But not until more landuse= is being used (the colouring is actually
helpful to see what is residential, and what unclassified, too; maybe it should
be left there, but just made smaller).

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Steve Coast
* @ 31/10/06 05:59:35 PM [hidden email] wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:40:26PM +0000, SteveC wrote:
> > * @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM [hidden email] wrote:
> > > Tom
> > > I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of
> >
> > Is this not illogical? (eg, it _is_ classified) can we not keep
> > highway=residential but just drop the abutters?
>
> I agree.
>
> Generally residential roads are not classified (they are C-prefix roads, which
> are county-wide, not country-wide, allocated). Having said that, I have started
> to use the landuse= tag, but still leave housing estates as highway=residential.

Oh I didn't realise that. They don't all have numbers do they?!

have fun,

SteveC [hidden email] http://www.asklater.com/steve/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

David Earl
In reply to this post by matthew-osm


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of
> [hidden email]
> Sent: 31 October 2006 18:00
> To: SteveC
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Residential areas
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:40:26PM +0000, SteveC wrote:
> > * @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM [hidden email] wrote:
> > > Tom
> > > I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of
> >
> > Is this not illogical? (eg, it _is_ classified) can we not keep
> > highway=residential but just drop the abutters?
>
> I agree.
>
> Generally residential roads are not classified (they are C-prefix
> roads, which...

I agree too, for a different reason: it is much simpler to just tag the
roads than create residential areas, so it is more likely to get done.

However, some roads need an equivalent of abutters which is not residential,
and while they possibly are unclassified roads, they want to be rendered
differently from either residential (grey stripe) or unclassified (no
stripe). This is why I proposed highway=urban, for a typical urban street
like a high street with a mixture of premises.

But even this doesn't really work all that well, as you can have
highway=primary High Streets, which need the abutters-like stripes
alongside. Maybe an 'abutters' tag on the way might be the way to do it,
which overrides the kind of road when rendering. We can still abolish
abutters on the segments (and get rid of segments too), but have the
convenience of a simple rendering.

There's also some residential roads which are more important than others.
But someone has a proposal in for a tag which provides a hierarchy like
this, which I think does the job there.

But at the moment it sounds like there's no consistency, so there's going to
be problems rendering stuff in the future.

David


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
80n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

80n


On 10/31/06, David Earl <[hidden email]> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of
> [hidden email]
> Sent: 31 October 2006 18:00
> To: SteveC
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Residential areas
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:40:26PM +0000, SteveC wrote:
> > * @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM [hidden email] wrote:
> > > Tom
> > > I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of
> >
> > Is this not illogical? (eg, it _is_ classified) can we not keep
> > highway=residential but just drop the abutters?
>
The reason for not continuing to use highway=residential is for back-compatability reasons.

If you use landuse=residential then you can be more precise.   For example, shading just one side of a road.  However, if the road is tagged as highway=residential you'll still get the shading on both sides of the road.

One way of preventing that is to switch off the abutters rendering rule for highway=residential, but then you loose the abutters everywhere else on the map.  So unless you fix the whole town you don't any real benefit from using the landuse tag.

Does the following proposal satisfy all the requirements:
1) Preserve the current rendering behaviour of highway=residential (but mark it as deprecated)
2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with houses along them
3) Use landuse=residential to demarcate the residential areas
4) Do not overlap areas that use the landuse tag unless they really do overlap and are tagged as different layers.


80n


 

> I agree.
>
> Generally residential roads are not classified (they are C-prefix
> roads, which...

I agree too, for a different reason: it is much simpler to just tag the
roads than create residential areas, so it is more likely to get done.

However, some roads need an equivalent of abutters which is not residential,
and while they possibly are unclassified roads, they want to be rendered
differently from either residential (grey stripe) or unclassified (no
stripe). This is why I proposed highway=urban, for a typical urban street
like a high street with a mixture of premises.

But even this doesn't really work all that well, as you can have
highway=primary High Streets, which need the abutters-like stripes
alongside. Maybe an 'abutters' tag on the way might be the way to do it,
which overrides the kind of road when rendering. We can still abolish
abutters on the segments (and get rid of segments too), but have the
convenience of a simple rendering.

There's also some residential roads which are more important than others.
But someone has a proposal in for a tag which provides a hierarchy like
this, which I think does the job there.

But at the moment it sounds like there's no consistency, so there's going to
be problems rendering stuff in the future.

David


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Interlug
On Tue, 2006-31-10 at 19:20 +0000, Etienne wrote:

> On 10/31/06, David Earl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>         > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:40:26PM +0000, SteveC wrote:
>         > > * @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM [hidden email] wrote:
>         > > > Tom
>         > > > I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead
>         of
> The reason for not continuing to use highway=residential is for
> back-compatability reasons.
>
> If you use landuse=residential then you can be more precise.   For
> example, shading just one side of a road.  However, if the road is
> tagged as highway=residential you'll still get the shading on both
> sides of the road.
>
> One way of preventing that is to switch off the abutters rendering
> rule for highway=residential, but then you loose the abutters
> everywhere else on the map.  So unless you fix the whole town you
> don't any real benefit from using the landuse tag.
>
> Does the following proposal satisfy all the requirements:
> 1) Preserve the current rendering behaviour of highway=residential
> (but mark it as deprecated)
> 2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with
> houses along them
> 3) Use landuse=residential to demarcate the residential areas
> 4) Do not overlap areas that use the landuse tag unless they really do
> overlap and are tagged as different layers.

I miss the highway=minor tag and see the loss of the highway=residential
tag as, well, a loss.  

Abutters aside, the residential and minor tags give me navigation cues.
"Take the minor road as far into the subdivision as possible, then the
residential to destination."  When a subdivision is an undifferentiated
mass of crescents and culs-de-sac, a visual cue (in the form of
rendering "minor" differently from "residential") tells the driver which
road is the preferred route.  

This preferred route may be wider, and get preferential treatment at
stop / yield intersections.  It may also be the likely local bus route,
or preferential route for taxicabs seeking fares.  

Landuse tags make for a beautiful map and ways make for a natural
boundary for landuse areas.  But what about the boundary way?  With no
highway=industrial, highway=minor or highway=residential tags, how do we
determine from the map if the road on the industrial/residential border
is suitable for large trucks?  Is that way industrial or residential?
It has both landuses abutting it.  

In the suburban sprawl here, it isn't unheard of for a road on the town
line to be a relatively low quality road with farms on one side and
subdivisions on the other.  The suburbs expand to the other side of the
road and at some point the road may be upgraded.  If you know which of
these roads is upgraded you can plan your trip better.  

And none of these roads, distinct in important ways depending on how you
navigate them, are nationally classified around here.  They're all
municipal / regional.  

I think we are losing resolution by deprecating minor and residential.
I think we need a highway=industrial tag.  Here, industrial implies
wider road, larger setbacks and higher clearance to overhead wires.  Not
a nice place for a stroll or bicycle ride when a residential is one
block over.



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Chris Morley-3
In reply to this post by 80n
Etienne wrote:

> Does the following proposal satisfy all the requirements:
> 1) Preserve the current rendering behaviour of highway=residential (but
> mark it as deprecated)
> 2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with
> houses along them
> 3) Use landuse=residential to demarcate the residential areas
> 4) Do not overlap areas that use the landuse tag unless they really do
> overlap and are tagged as different layers.
>
If you are going to introduce a new key "residential" you might as well
allow it to have values left and right (based on the segment direction)
to handle the streets with houses on one side only. (I look forward to
seeing how Osmarender would deal with it.)

Keeping both abutters and landuse might have some advantages. I take
landuse to be more precise, whereas abutters are to give a feel for the
area. You can map with abutters from the road, but you need to get round
the back or have a high resolution arial photograph to properly
delineate landuse in villages set in farmland.

Chris

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Tom Chance-2
Ahoy,

On Wednesday 01 November 2006 09:54, Chris Morley wrote:

> Etienne wrote:
> > Does the following proposal satisfy all the requirements:
> > 1) Preserve the current rendering behaviour of highway=residential (but
> > mark it as deprecated)
> > 2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with
> > houses along them
> > 3) Use landuse=residential to demarcate the residential areas
> > 4) Do not overlap areas that use the landuse tag unless they really do
> > overlap and are tagged as different layers.
>
> If you are going to introduce a new key "residential" you might as well
> allow it to have values left and right (based on the segment direction)
> to handle the streets with houses on one side only. (I look forward to
> seeing how Osmarender would deal with it.)

I think this is all getting too complicated, and if we ever move to Andy's
improved schema it will also be slightly pointless. It seems like we all have
different data we'd like tagged to roads (should navigation software send you
down it, are kids playing on this street, how should a pretty map render it,
how does it fit into $my_country's road classification schema, etc.).

I don't see what's wrong with highway=residential for now, even if we secretly
think of it as being shorthand highway=unclassified,residential=yes. David
Earl makes a good point when he says that added complication will mean less
complete data, and we lose no detail with the shorthand version. I've turned
abutters off in osmarender, but leaving them on by default and rendering them
before any landuse tags means it's no big deal if they happen to render under
a great big landuse=residential area.

In the long term I really think we need to sort the whole tagging system out,
because at the moment it's a confusing free-for-all with less coherence by
the week. I'd like us to find a way to produce a Map_Features v2 that covers
all foreseeable needs coherently, keeping different kinds of criteria
(official classification, surface condition, access/speed/weight etc.
restrictions, size, lanes, what sits on either side) in separate tags.

The new schema should also be built into the editors such that it's easy to
whack in shorthand answers, like "this is a bog standard residential road",
and to then tweak the values that implies so that, for example, a residential
road has a special weight restriction or a muddy road surface rather than
tarmac. JOSM's annotation preset feature comes close to doing this.

So I'm opposed to Etienne's proposal, and suggest we find a way to help Andy
work on the new, improved schema.

Regards,
Tom


--
The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting
 - Kundera

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
80n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

80n
In reply to this post by Chris Morley-3
On 11/1/06, Chris Morley <[hidden email]> wrote:
Etienne wrote:

> Does the following proposal satisfy all the requirements:
> 1) Preserve the current rendering behaviour of highway=residential (but
> mark it as deprecated)
> 2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with
> houses along them
> 3) Use landuse=residential to demarcate the residential areas
> 4) Do not overlap areas that use the landuse tag unless they really do
> overlap and are tagged as different layers.
>
If you are going to introduce a new key "residential" you might as well
allow it to have values left and right (based on the segment direction)
to handle the streets with houses on one side only. (I look forward to
seeing how Osmarender would deal with it.)

residential=left|right|yes

The implication of the above proposal was that the residential tag would *not* be rendered (at least not by Osmarender), but just provide information.  It would be used to provide additional data in the case where the road has been tagged as unclassified *and* landuse=residential has been used to shade the area.  It would not be used for rendering because landuse=residential is doing that job.


Keeping both abutters and landuse might have some advantages. I take
landuse to be more precise, whereas abutters are to give a feel for the
area. You can map with abutters from the road, but you need to get round
the back or have a high resolution arial photograph to properly
delineate landuse in villages set in farmland.

Abutters can still be used, as can highway=residential, but neither should be used in combination with landuse=residential otherwise the results are ugly.  And the point of landuse=residential is to provide a cleaner look than the abutters approach.

It is not easy to get high precision for any of the landuse tags unless the borders are accessible.  I think in most cases it will be an approximate characterisation rather than definitive zoning.

80n


 

Chris

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
80n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

80n
In reply to this post by Tom Chance-2
On 11/1/06, Tom Chance <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ahoy,

On Wednesday 01 November 2006 09:54, Chris Morley wrote:

> Etienne wrote:
> > Does the following proposal satisfy all the requirements:
> > 1) Preserve the current rendering behaviour of highway=residential (but
> > mark it as deprecated)
> > 2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with
> > houses along them
> > 3) Use landuse=residential to demarcate the residential areas
> > 4) Do not overlap areas that use the landuse tag unless they really do
> > overlap and are tagged as different layers.
>
> If you are going to introduce a new key "residential" you might as well
> allow it to have values left and right (based on the segment direction)
> to handle the streets with houses on one side only. (I look forward to
> seeing how Osmarender would deal with it.)

I think this is all getting too complicated, and if we ever move to Andy's
improved schema it will also be slightly pointless. It seems like we all have
different data we'd like tagged to roads (should navigation software send you
down it, are kids playing on this street, how should a pretty map render it,
how does it fit into $my_country's road classification schema, etc.).

I don't see what's wrong with highway=residential for now,

The problem with highway=residential is that the abbutters creep out from under the landuse=residential zones and make the map look ugly. 

Your solution was to switch off the abutters rule in Osmarender, but this is only fine if you add landuse tags for the *whole* of area.
 

even if we secretly
think of it as being shorthand highway=unclassified,residential=yes. David
Earl makes a good point when he says that added complication will mean less
complete data, and we lose no detail with the shorthand version.

It's not complicated.  Either you tag (highway=residential) or you tag (highway=unclassified and landuse=residential).  Just dont tag highway=residential and landuse=residential in the same place if you want pretty results.

Everyone can carry on using highway=residential because the change is backwards compatible.  Turning off the abutters rule in Osmarender is not a backwards compatible solution.

I've turned
abutters off in osmarender, but leaving them on by default and rendering them
before any landuse tags means it's no big deal if they happen to render under
a great big landuse=residential area.

But the problem is that some of them don't render underneath the landuse area.  Especially those where it is residential on just one side of the road - which is exactly the problem that the landuse tag fixes.

In the long term I really think we need to sort the whole tagging system out,
because at the moment it's a confusing free-for-all with less coherence by
the week. I'd like us to find a way to produce a Map_Features v2 that covers
all foreseeable needs coherently, keeping different kinds of criteria
(official classification, surface condition, access/speed/weight etc.
restrictions, size, lanes, what sits on either side) in separate tags.

Totally agree.  Are there any volunteers who would be prepared to help Andy with getting the new tagging schema out?
 

The new schema should also be built into the editors such that it's easy to
whack in shorthand answers, like "this is a bog standard residential road",
and to then tweak the values that implies so that, for example, a residential
road has a special weight restriction or a muddy road surface rather than
tarmac. JOSM's annotation preset feature comes close to doing this.

Agree.

So I'm opposed to Etienne's proposal, and suggest we find a way to help Andy
work on the new, improved schema.
 

Regards,
Tom


--
The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting
- Kundera

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Andy Allan
On 11/1/06, Etienne <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/06, Tom Chance <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think this is all getting too complicated, and if we ever move to Andy's
improved schema it will also be slightly pointless. It seems like we all have
different data we'd like tagged to roads (should navigation software send you
down it, are kids playing on this street, how should a pretty map render it,
how does it fit into $my_country's road classification schema, etc.).

I don't see what's wrong with highway=residential for now,

The problem with highway=residential is that the abbutters creep out from under the landuse=residential zones and make the map look ugly. 

Personally, I think the root problem is using attributes of the road to imply landuse on either side of it. The road outside the front of a corner shop might be a residential road, and should be tagged as such. But nothing should be implied about the land use from the type of road nearby. Think of a large housing estate with an area of open ground in the middle of it - think modern developments - all the roads are residential roads (quiet, parked cars, children playing football), but you can't extrapolate from that to imply that there are houses on either side. Same if we went for a highway=industrial - an access road to a quarry that goes past the back gardens of houses - highway=industrial shouldn't imply that the landuse on either side of the road is industrial.
 
So my vote is to tag roads with the correct thing for the road, and tag landuse by using areas, and take abutters (how many meters deep should shops be implied by abutters=commercial? See the problem?) and all such implications and throw them away.

Andy


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

matthew-osm
In reply to this post by 80n
Hi!

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:58:07AM +0000, Etienne wrote:
> On 11/1/06, Tom Chance <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > 2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with
> >> > houses along them

> >> If you are going to introduce a new key "residential" you might as well
> >> allow it to have values left and right (based on the segment direction)
> >> to handle the streets with houses on one side only. (I look forward to
> >> seeing how Osmarender would deal with it.)

> >I think this is all getting too complicated, and if we ever move to Andy's
> >improved schema it will also be slightly pointless. It seems like we all have
> >different data we'd like tagged to roads (should navigation software send you
> >down it, are kids playing on this street, how should a pretty map render it,
> >how does it fit into $my_country's road classification schema, etc.).
> >
> >I don't see what's wrong with highway=residential for now,

> The problem with highway=residential is that the abbutters creep out from
> under the landuse=residential zones and make the map look ugly.

Yes.

> >think of it as being shorthand highway=unclassified,residential=yes. David
> >Earl makes a good point when he says that added complication will mean less
> >complete data, and we lose no detail with the shorthand version.
>
> It's not complicated.  Either you tag (highway=residential) or you tag
> (highway=unclassified and landuse=residential).  Just dont tag
> highway=residential and landuse=residential in the same place if you want
> pretty results.
>
> Everyone can carry on using highway=residential because the change is
> backwards compatible.  Turning off the abutters rule in Osmarender is not a
> backwards compatible solution.

I really don't like this idea of using boolean flags all over the place. I would
much prefer to see the following:

  highway=unclassified
  usage=residential

rather than

  highway=unclassified
  residential=yes

We then extend that to

  highway=<whatever>
  usage=<industrial|residential|retail|etc>

and then even

  highway=<whatever>
  usage=residential,industrial

for those (I would guess fairly few) cases when a road can really be classed as
both. In most cases, I would probably actually class them as neither.

This then means that "highway" is the political classification of a road,
whereas usage is the physical classification. This split is a very good thing,
IMHO.

("usage" is a suggestion, but there may be a lot better word to use instead!)

Comments? ;-)

--
Matthew


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
80n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

80n
In reply to this post by Andy Allan
On 11/1/06, Andy Allan <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/06, Etienne <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/1/06, Tom Chance <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think this is all getting too complicated, and if we ever move to Andy's
improved schema it will also be slightly pointless. It seems like we all have
different data we'd like tagged to roads (should navigation software send you
down it, are kids playing on this street, how should a pretty map render it,
how does it fit into $my_country's road classification schema, etc.).

I don't see what's wrong with highway=residential for now,

The problem with highway=residential is that the abbutters creep out from under the landuse=residential zones and make the map look ugly. 

Personally, I think the root problem is using attributes of the road to imply landuse on either side of it. The road outside the front of a corner shop might be a residential road, and should be tagged as such. But nothing should be implied about the land use from the type of road nearby. Think of a large housing estate with an area of open ground in the middle of it - think modern developments - all the roads are residential roads (quiet, parked cars, children playing football), but you can't extrapolate from that to imply that there are houses on either side. Same if we went for a highway=industrial - an access road to a quarry that goes past the back gardens of houses - highway=industrial shouldn't imply that the landuse on either side of the road is industrial.
 
So my vote is to tag roads with the correct thing for the road, and tag landuse by using areas, and take abutters (how many meters deep should shops be implied by abutters=commercial? See the problem?) and all such implications and throw them away.


I agree that abutters is a poor implementation and was only invented at the time because we had no mechanism to describe or reder areas.

If we dump the rendering of abutters many existing maps are going to lose some detail next time they are rendered.  Is this acceptable?

80n

 

Andy



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Residential areas

Joerg Ostertag (OSM Tettnang/Germany)
> If we dump the rendering of abutters many existing maps are going to lose
> some detail next time they are rendered.  Is this acceptable?

For me: YES

-
Joerg

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tagging areas

David Groom
In reply to this post by matthew-osm
I'd like some advice on tagging areas.  Say for instance there is a park,
bounded on four sides by roads, each or the roads is one way, and so the
segments have to be drawn in the following order:

------>A-------------->B------->
            ^                       ^
             |                        |
             |                        |
             |                        |
             |                        |
------>C-------------->D------->

The park would be represented by the square with points at nodes, A, B, C &
D.

Ideally I would mark the area as a way consisting of segments A-B, D-B, C-D,
and C-A.

However according to the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Tagging_Areas 
"ensure that all the segments are drawn in the same direction".

If an area is marked as above then when it is rendered the fill is OK, ie
all the square is coloured, but the stroke (the line which should border the
square), not only borders the square, but also gets drawn from C-D.

Now I suppose the solution is to put in new nodes close to B, D & C and draw
segments which do all go in the same direction.  But this seems to be adding
in a lot of unnecessary nodes and segments.  My understanding is at some
stage anyway segments will disappear, and so all these "extra" nodes and
segments become almost redundant anyway.

Is there any benefit to dropping the stroke rendering from the rules, and
allowing areas to be defined as above?

David




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OSM@home

David Groom
I just want to give a quick reminder of the work done by Oliver on OSM@home
http://almien.co.uk/OSM/Places/

It now has renderings of 1,122 places, and is not only a valuable resource
in its own right, but I think is a very quick way of demonstrating how the
whole OSM project is growing, and just how many places OSM surveyors are
active in.

Not only that, but if we run out of ideas for
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Featured_images then
http://almien.co.uk/OSM/Places/?action=interesting might help !

David




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
123