landuse=residential within landuse=residential

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

landuse=residential within landuse=residential

john whelan-2
I'm starting to see areas where someone has mapped a largish area landuse=residential and other mappers have tightly mapped groups of buildings and tagged landuse=residential within this.

I'm not sure whether to ignore them or delete one or the other?

Thoughts please.

Thanks John

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

Nick Allen-2
Sorry

Missed the list with my reply.

Nick (OSM=Tallguy)
my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Nick Allen" <[hidden email]>
Date: 28 Mar 2017 19:57
Subject: Re: [HOT] landuse=residential within landuse=residential
To: "john whelan" <[hidden email]>
Cc:

I think it depends on the project instructions. 

For instance the Aweil tasks such as http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/2525
Have a link to a very good diary entry with good screenshots indicating largish residential boundaries. 

Some of the others say something like 2 buildings. 

Nick (OSM=Tallguy)
my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!

On 28 Mar 2017 18:48, "john whelan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm starting to see areas where someone has mapped a largish area landuse=residential and other mappers have tightly mapped groups of buildings and tagged landuse=residential within this.

I'm not sure whether to ignore them or delete one or the other?

Thoughts please.

Thanks John

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

Palolo
Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size. 
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.

I would suggest that an additional landuse tag would be appropriate.

landuse=rural_residential ?
landuse=agriculture_residential ?
landuse=pastoral_agriculture ?

Additionally the highway tagging needs to be updated as well.

highway=rural_residential 
deprecate highway=unclassified for highway=minor_road 

These are some of the topics that I am hoping will be discussed at SOTM Africa in Kampala in July. http://sotmafrica.org/

Emmor Nile
(Palolo)

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Nick Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sorry

Missed the list with my reply.

Nick (OSM=Tallguy)
my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Nick Allen" <[hidden email]>
Date: 28 Mar 2017 19:57
Subject: Re: [HOT] landuse=residential within landuse=residential
To: "john whelan" <[hidden email]>
Cc:

I think it depends on the project instructions. 

For instance the Aweil tasks such as http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/2525
Have a link to a very good diary entry with good screenshots indicating largish residential boundaries. 

Some of the others say something like 2 buildings. 

Nick (OSM=Tallguy)
my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!

On 28 Mar 2017 18:48, "john whelan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm starting to see areas where someone has mapped a largish area landuse=residential and other mappers have tightly mapped groups of buildings and tagged landuse=residential within this.

I'm not sure whether to ignore them or delete one or the other?

Thoughts please.

Thanks John

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

majka

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua@... wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.


_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

Thomas Hills
Hi,

Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a plain old normal volunteer.

Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly useful in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area which has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not be used as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around being observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds relatively sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in accordance with the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside of HOT I would use a different method.

I should probably know this already, but what is the method for estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?

Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for HOT purposes?

Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I think that they might be appropriate instead of your agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.

Cheers,

Tom

On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka <[hidden email]> wrote:

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua@... wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.


_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

Palolo
Thomas, thank you for the thoughts.

I have looked at the building=farm and landuse=farmyard and believe they do not apply in here in Ethiopia.A building that is a dwelling should not be tagged as "farm". It is not possible to determine the use of a building from aerial imagery. Last week I was in a village and a building that looked like a house also had a room that was where livestock were kept at night. In the same way similar looking buildings could function as a small store (kiosk). I would like to stick with building=yes, but also have a landuse tag that is useful for cartography, but also humanitarian uses like malaria elimination, or population estimates.
I would also suggest that boundary is not a good idea in Africa.  In the next decade it is predicted that there will be a huge migration shift to cities, the places these people will live will be outside of existing administrative boundaries. My opinion is that HOT stick with landuse as we see it and let those with authoritative information create the boundaries.

Emmor

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a plain old normal volunteer.

Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly useful in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area which has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not be used as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around being observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds relatively sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in accordance with the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside of HOT I would use a different method.

I should probably know this already, but what is the method for estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?

Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for HOT purposes?

Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I think that they might be appropriate instead of your agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.

Cheers,

Tom

On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka <[hidden email]> wrote:

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua@... wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.


_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

severin
Hi,

landuse=residential shows an urban or housing sprawl and therefore can cross various existing boundaries. boundary=* is related to an official or existing boundary and in the case of a village, it will encompass not only one residential area, but sometimes several and other kinds of landuses like farmland.

I already saw people replacing the landuse=residential tag by place=town over a precise urban area for some towns in Africa what I think is basically wrong because these places are generally larger than the residential area.

Sincerely,

Severin

2017-03-29 14:03 GMT+02:00 Vao Matua <[hidden email]>:
Thomas, thank you for the thoughts.

I have looked at the building=farm and landuse=farmyard and believe they do not apply in here in Ethiopia.A building that is a dwelling should not be tagged as "farm". It is not possible to determine the use of a building from aerial imagery. Last week I was in a village and a building that looked like a house also had a room that was where livestock were kept at night. In the same way similar looking buildings could function as a small store (kiosk). I would like to stick with building=yes, but also have a landuse tag that is useful for cartography, but also humanitarian uses like malaria elimination, or population estimates.
I would also suggest that boundary is not a good idea in Africa.  In the next decade it is predicted that there will be a huge migration shift to cities, the places these people will live will be outside of existing administrative boundaries. My opinion is that HOT stick with landuse as we see it and let those with authoritative information create the boundaries.

Emmor

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a plain old normal volunteer.

Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly useful in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area which has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not be used as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around being observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds relatively sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in accordance with the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside of HOT I would use a different method.

I should probably know this already, but what is the method for estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?

Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for HOT purposes?

Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I think that they might be appropriate instead of your agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.

Cheers,

Tom

On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka <[hidden email]> wrote:

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua@... wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.


_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

john whelan-2
> I already saw people replacing the landuse=residential tag by place=town over a precise urban area for some towns in Africa what I think is basically wrong because these places are generally larger than the residential area.

I must confess I normally just add a landuse=residential to these.  I'll quite often come across a new mapper who has used place=hamlet etc.

Cheerio John

On 29 Mar 2017 12:04 pm, "Severin Menard" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

landuse=residential shows an urban or housing sprawl and therefore can cross various existing boundaries. boundary=* is related to an official or existing boundary and in the case of a village, it will encompass not only one residential area, but sometimes several and other kinds of landuses like farmland.

I already saw people replacing the landuse=residential tag by place=town over a precise urban area for some towns in Africa what I think is basically wrong because these places are generally larger than the residential area.

Sincerely,

Severin

2017-03-29 14:03 GMT+02:00 Vao Matua <[hidden email]>:
Thomas, thank you for the thoughts.

I have looked at the building=farm and landuse=farmyard and believe they do not apply in here in Ethiopia.A building that is a dwelling should not be tagged as "farm". It is not possible to determine the use of a building from aerial imagery. Last week I was in a village and a building that looked like a house also had a room that was where livestock were kept at night. In the same way similar looking buildings could function as a small store (kiosk). I would like to stick with building=yes, but also have a landuse tag that is useful for cartography, but also humanitarian uses like malaria elimination, or population estimates.
I would also suggest that boundary is not a good idea in Africa.  In the next decade it is predicted that there will be a huge migration shift to cities, the places these people will live will be outside of existing administrative boundaries. My opinion is that HOT stick with landuse as we see it and let those with authoritative information create the boundaries.

Emmor

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a plain old normal volunteer.

Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly useful in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area which has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not be used as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around being observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds relatively sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in accordance with the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside of HOT I would use a different method.

I should probably know this already, but what is the method for estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?

Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for HOT purposes?

Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I think that they might be appropriate instead of your agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.

Cheers,

Tom

On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka <[hidden email]> wrote:

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua@... wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.


_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot


_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

Kretzer
In reply to this post by majka
Hi, I was also bothered by the coexistence of very small and very large residential area in many loosely populated African areas. 
I agree that the tag seems to make most sense in densely built-up areas - to differentiate it from other uses of built-up land, not from open areas.  
 
But I'm not sure about "boundary" either. In Johns original example it was suggested to circle clusters of two or three buildings, and I'm not sure about the benefits of this. In these cases I think  mapping buildings alone would be sufficient. Or am I missing something? In most renderings you can see the residential areas in smaller scales as the buildings - so you could identify populated areas more easily. Is that a benfit? Or could that be solved by different rendering?
 
Surely population density could be accessed more accurately by numbers of buildings than by sizes of "blobs", which are outlines very inconsistently ?
 
 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. März 2017 um 10:33 Uhr
Von: majka <[hidden email]>
An: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua@... wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.

_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

john whelan-2
>Surely population density could be accessed more accurately by numbers of buildings than by sizes of "blobs", which are outlines very inconsistently ?

I've seen people take the square area of all the buildings and apply a formula to it that includes the number of storeys.  Not as good as a census but not bad.

If the buildings are mapped with the JOSM building_tool plugin you stand a chance.  I know it is possible to map them accurately with iD, I've seen it done but I do more validation than mapping these days and to be honest yes there is a building roughly there but the area is quite often twice what it should be and no two sides are parallel.  Quite often the settlement is only partially mapped ie half the buildings are missing.  Also its a question of resources.  Mapping all the buildings in a settlement takes time much more time than just mapping a landuse=residential for the settlement.

Now look at the number of projects we have that have been open more than five years.  Some haven't been touched for years.  We do have a limited number of mappers, is the best use of them to map buildings in one small area? If you're a project manager in that small area the answer is probably yes but from the big picture its probably better to get a few highways and villages in first.  Then the locals can start to add to the map.  You need boots on the ground to add detail anyway and hopefully that will give a few more mappers to add buildings.

Cheerio John

 

On 29 March 2017 at 18:03, Kretzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, I was also bothered by the coexistence of very small and very large residential area in many loosely populated African areas. 
I agree that the tag seems to make most sense in densely built-up areas - to differentiate it from other uses of built-up land, not from open areas.  
 
But I'm not sure about "boundary" either. In Johns original example it was suggested to circle clusters of two or three buildings, and I'm not sure about the benefits of this. In these cases I think  mapping buildings alone would be sufficient. Or am I missing something? In most renderings you can see the residential areas in smaller scales as the buildings - so you could identify populated areas more easily. Is that a benfit? Or could that be solved by different rendering?
 
Surely population density could be accessed more accurately by numbers of buildings than by sizes of "blobs", which are outlines very inconsistently ?
 
 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. März 2017 um 10:33 Uhr
Von: majka <[hidden email]>
An: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua@... wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.

_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot



_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot