Talk:Key:landuse

From OpenStreetMap Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Inconsistent

The beginning of the article goes to great lengths to argue that landuse=park is inappropriate, but we have landuse=cemetery later in the article. In fact, the summary seems to be at odds with how the landuse tag is being used: What's the appropriate way to tag the farmland associated with a single farm? I'm sure most people would use landuse=farm, and I'm not aware of an alternative. Robx 12:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i put that there, removed now. i'm concerned that landuse is being used as a dumping ground for any random tag tht doesn't fit well elsewhere, with the consequence that the tags under it become horribly inconsistent, with no real common theme. more discussion is needed Myfanwy 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The original intention was that landuse was exactly that, ie what use the land is being put to. At the start I only saw two land area tags, natural=to cover land that has not been worked or landuse= for land that has. Farmland would fall under the landuse tag whereas uncultivated (historically) land would not. blackadder 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

great, that makes sense. there are several landuse tags that continue to make a lot of sense in a similar way (i.e. they are consistent), such as residential, commercial, retail, industrial. These appear consistent, as they can be used as a general description for an area of land occupied by many different entities.

However, we then get into the not so consistent usage, such as cemetery, quarry, forest, military, reservoir,..... and so on. As far as i can see, these are no longer general descriptions for an area, but are far more specific, and deserve to be elsewhere. Put it another way: the landuse tags appear to be a way of saying "i'm not going to map every entity in this area, it's too complicated/of no value - instead, i'm going to map one big piece of land, encompassing them all and tag it with a general tag which sums up which each of them do". problem is, we have a lot of tags that can map each individual entity, which is very inconsistent. a general overview of what landuse is for would help tag proposal discussions no end, as it would mean we could refer back to it when we create a new tag Myfanwy 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd want to keep landuse=residential even in areas where every single house and every single lot has been mapped. Robx 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

what for? when every residential property is tagged, the sum of all those areas will be exactly the same as the previously tagged landuse area. we will be tagging one area of land twice, with two tags with the same information stored in them Myfanwy 22:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Because not every application of our data is interested in the same level of detail. Generating a landuse=residential polygon for say a zoom 12 tile from individual buildings and lots is needlessly complicated. Even at the same zoom level a map for e.g. a real estate agent and one for canal boaters will probably be rendered with different details. Besides most likely the landuse polygon is drawn long before all the details and would still be in the database, but just not visible to normal queries. --Cartinus 05:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that landuse=military is an appropriate use of the landuse tag.

well, we can easily tag any military item with a more specific tag. they are generally one of : firing range, naval base, air base, arms dump, etc., etc. landuse looks to have been initially created where we don't know/can't find out what's there. could you go into more detail why you think military is appropriate? can you give an example that does not fit in an existing military= tag, or that cannot have one created? Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that landuse has been abused as a generic area-tag. How about extending Key:area to allow arbitrary values that don't fit anywhere else? That way when people want to tag an area for which no appropriate category exist, they'd just put in an area=my_new_type_of_area. Then by analyzing what area= has been used for, we might find other sensible categories.

i see what you're getting at, but really there's no reason why we can't come up with a tag for everything that's significant enough to tag, either by slightly expanding (in a consistent way) an existing tag, or creating one new. there should be no generic areas without an appropriate category. can you think of any? Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i didn't read your item properly first time. yes, this is a good way of discovering new tags, you're right, whether the tag comes before the use or not isn't too important. i think this is how a lot of mappers work. the key now is to get the information out of planet and into the tag proposals system. i've been looking at tagwatch recently, and have been toying with using that to manually seed the new 'proposed features' page Myfanwy 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of landuse= and natural= is that we should be able to cover the whole map with these. The area covered by a motorway might be tagged as landuse=transportation. In that case, what should a cemetery fall under? Robx 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

my understanding of landuse is "to categorise the general use of an area of land" i.e. if an area of land is 90% houses, it gets tagged landuse=residential, even if there is a small shop in the area, a church, a park, a small cemetery or whatever. the cemetery (amenity=cemetery) would then be tagged separately, on top of the landuse tag, as would the church, the park and the shop Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

you're right i think about the motorway though, there should probably be something similar to landuse=railway . in case you're wondering, i consider landuse=railway to be valid, as railway land is often hard to tag more specifically; there is often little demarcation between separate areas (sidings, general rail corridor, marshalling yards, maintenance areas). plus of course it's generally illegal to trespass on it, and very dangerous, which makes it hard to map Myfanwy 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To me this sounds inconsistent. All those separate entities on the railway land are owned by a single company. Most often the whole area is fenced with a single fence too. Just like the cemetery consists of lots of separate items (burial plots, walk ways, contemplation building, gardeners shed, flower kiosk) managed by a single entity (local council or religious organisation). So to me it is not strange to find them in the same category. --Cartinus 06:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe we should be considering replacing landuse with council zoning regions? most cities will have areas where certain activities are allowed, e.g. retail, residential, industrial, etc. and certain areas where they are not Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Having to look up something basic like this at your local council hall sounds way to complicated/official to me for a map that is supposed to be made by average geeks who are walking/riding/driving around with their GPS and just observing what they see. --Cartinus 06:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If we would do this, then I think you'll loose the discussion at the surface mine proposal. I'm pretty sure most countries have a separate zoning category for that. --Cartinus 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Rendering issues

Is it correct to map the whole of a town as landuse'd residential. This was done recently on one of my local towns -- but unfortunately, osmarender doesn't see landuse as a "meta-layer", and treated implicitly as layer "0" -- which meant that overnight all of the tunnels disappeared from the map that were (correctly) mapped as layer "-1". Hopefully, retagging the landuse area as place="town" should cure this, but keep the spirit of the tagging.

Wikipedia definition

we shouldn't necessarily take wp as gospel, but they have some interesting info on landuse, particularly how it relates to council zoning and regulations.
[1]

Landuse Aerodrome

I think we should have a landuse=aerodrome tag. current, heathrow is tagged as landuse=apron, but i think that is only for parking planes. Not the huge grassy fields surrounding the taxiways and so on. I have seen aerodromes tagged with landuse=industrial or landuse=village_green as well, so i think we shoud sort this out. GercoKees 11:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to extend the use of aeroway=aerodrome from only points to points and areas? Then it would be the same as the similar military=airfield. --Cartinus 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. We should certainly do this. --Hawke 23:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Landuse on nodes

Can landuse be used on nodes? Table says it can be used while infobox says it can't. There are about 5000 nodes with landuse tag in planet.osm. While most of them appear to be mistakes, sometimes they make sense (like landuse=quarry for very small quarries). --Jttt 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cities and landuse

I recently saw some towns around my area where landuse = residential has been used even though all streets have been mapped already. I once read that landuse = residential is only used if there is nothing mapped yet. So now I don't know how the project is handling this issue. Does the landuse stay even if you have a quite decent map about the town or will landuse be deleted once the town is been mapped?

Landuse should stay once a town has all streets mapped. How else would you differentiate between residential/commercial/industrial areas (or even forests and farms in a more suburban/rural setting). Whoever wrote what you remember might have been writing about the use of landuse=residential/layer=-1 that is used by some to designate whole towns at once. --Cartinus 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How to map

If an area is enclosed on some or all sides by a highway, should you then reuse the points from the highway in the area? Pros: less points needed, logical connection between the way and the area. Cons: harder to select in the editor? rendering issues? I'm thinking mainly of mapping landuse in cities, where there often is zoning based on where the roads go. Residential area on one side of the road and a park on the other etc. Norpan 16:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus about this. If you look in the mailing list archives, you can find multiple heated discussions which way is best. The only conclusion that can be drawn from them, is that you should do what you think is best. --Cartinus 23:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How to use

Update: - josm/latest has support for easy editing of multiple ways sharing the same nodes (use ALT-key and left click OR set selectaction.cycles.multiple.matches=true) --Cmuelle8 05:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is right or left version correct? --Hind 09:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Left. --Hawke 16:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you go through the mailinglist archives, then you can find this discussed more than once. There are people who think the left method is best and there are people who think the right method is best. There has never been a "final decision", so both methods are "allowed". --Cartinus 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Other possibilities (I have seen) each block has individual landuse area.

Or is a block surrounded by highway=residential implicitly landuse=residential? Why bother with the area tag?

See above (Cities and landuse) --Hind 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Giving each block its own landuse area seems ridiculously complicated to me, but is not incorrect. I don't think there's a need for area=*. But if you meant "why bother tagging the area at all?" then I expect that it's because it's not easy for renderers to determine when an area is fully surrounded by a particular tag applied to arbitrary ways. Also, many people don't bother tagging the area. --Hawke 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The right version has even more advantages (which are at the same time disadvantages of the left version): 1. you get explicitly the block border. (More information) 2. You get the true areas. This is important when you try to find out in which area a point feature lies. 3. If you do it well there is no "untidy apperance" but a more of detail and actually IMHO a "tidier appearance" --Dieterdreist 16:37, 28 August 2011 (BST)

I tend to use the approach on the right (keep landuse data mostly detached) but the other way works too. It's an open question. -- Harry Wood 16:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Near worldwide coverage?

If I understand correctly, it seems that together, landuse and natural tags should cover nearly the entire planet's (land) surface.

I can get on board with that, but it looks to me that today, less than a tenth of one percent of the world's land area is currently covered with either of these. What's the best way to proceed with mapping these features? Should any attempt be made to apply this information evenly, or is it acceptable to have isolated regions with extensive landuse/natural area coverage? This might look a little goofy at low zoom, unless the renderers use fainter colors for these areas at lower zoom levels. Should I even be concerned with such a monumental task, or is it generally considered a low priority? Vid the Kid 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See Land use and areas of natural land for more description and open questions on this topic -- Harry Wood 14:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Named Housing Developments

Where we are it is common to give a name to housing developments. landuse=residential is ideal for this since it blocks in the area and displays the name at reasonable levels. However, since in Mapnik and Osmarender it has no outline, if you get several developments next to one another, it is not possible to tell where one ends and another starts. Is this the right place to put in requests for tweaks to the renderer like this. Even a slightly darker gray outline would be great. (Unsigned comment by User:Heptazane, 2009 June 29)

This would be a good thing to suggest at [trac.openstreetmap.org]. Log in there with your OSM login, and open a new ticket. The component would either be "Mapnik" or "Osmarender" (or one ticket for each?) and the importance would probably be "Enhancement". Describe in the ticket how you'd like the rendering to change, and why.

On the other hand, aren't the divisions between residential developments usually evident in the street patterns? Around here, adjacent residential developments rarely connect to each other directly, sort of like the two halves of the human brain. Vid the Kid 01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And if there's a fence or a hedge (how else would you know where their border is?), you can draw an extra way (using the same nodes, even) between the areas and tag it with barrier=fence/wall/hedge - which all show up as a black line marking an obstruction. Alv 06:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider reading this page, Neighbourhood, which discusses mapping neighborhoods and subdivisions. -- Joshdoe 19:18, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Rendering landuse=vineyard

In the Proposed features/orchard, there is a begining of a set of patterns for landuse=orchard, with an alterntive proposal for the landuse=vineyard. FrViPofm 09:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Landuse for grass between roads

What kind of landuse do I use for grass between roads or paths beside streets? example: "meadow" is for natural grass, that isn't cut and "forest" isn't appropriate either. I think, we need something like "managed_green" for filling spots like these. Flaimo 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

landuse=grass is rendered already. Managed patches of grass that aren't big (or leisurely or accessible) enough to be leisure=park. Alv 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

to my mind for not accessible grass between carriageways example or within junctions example we need a tag landuse=highway. We already have a comparable landuse=railway, why shouldn't we have a tag for areas which are clearly pertaining to roads? --Kaitu 21:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

to map the physical representation for streets use area:highway=*, where "*" is tagged with the default highway values. --Flaimo 22:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

landuse=leisure and leisure=park

In the first thread on this page the notion of using Tag:landuse=park was briefly discussed. I would argue that one could do something like the type=route/route=road pairing used in relations to first designate land in use for leisure, then use a leisure 'subtype'. I propose (and will likely start to use) the pairing Tag:landuse=leisure/Tag:leisure=park. This could also be applied to recreation_ground, leading to the pairing Tag:landuse=leisure/Tag:leisure=recreation_ground.

P.S. According to value queries against http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/landuse/ there are 278 uses of landuse=park, 13 uses of landuse=leisure and 8,682 uses of landuse=recreation_ground as of 14 Nov 09.

P.P.S. According to value queries against http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/leisure/ there are 123,352 uses of leisure=park and 9,643 uses of leisure=recreation_ground as of 14 Nov 09.

--Ceyockey 20:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that those numbers are from sometime in August 2009, since the data in OSMdoc isn't refreshed periodically (yet). --Cartinus 09:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

landuse=grass and landuse=meadow

Could somebody please better explain the difference between landuse=grass and landuse=meadow? --Kaitu 21:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

landuse=grass has a wider application than landuse=meadow. A meadow[2] is a specific kind of grass covered area, usually outside of build-up areas. landuse=grass on the other hand is also used for things like the grass covered centre of a big roundabout, a stretch of grass in a residential area where you can let your dog run, etc. --Cartinus 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect a landuse=grass patch to be mowed at least once or twice each summer, whereas a meadow can be uncut; only woody plants might be removed occasionally, or they don't flourish to overcome the grassy plants. Alv 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There are cases where land within a city has been allowed to grow without mowing as a way to 'return it to a natural state', thus emulating a little urban meadow; there are patches of this type of area on the campus of the company I work for. Could you suggest how such 'urban meadowland' might be tagged? --Ceyockey 13:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

landuse=meadow on the area. This area must be included in a relation multipolygon as inner, the landuse=residential or what so ever is the outer of the relation. FrViPofm 11:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clubhouse?

What would the landuse be for a meeting place like a sportsmen's club (hunting/fishing) or Masonic Lodge? --NE2 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would use landuse=institutional. See discussion further below. T99 21:07, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Landuse for roads

in the german forums there is a discussion going on weather to tag the area for roads with landuse=highway + highway=path/track/primary/... besides the already existing ways for roads, since high resolution satellite pictures are available for more and more areas, which would allow a more detailed mapping. landuse could be used for rendering purposes, while all routing information is still tagged on the ways. -- Flaimo 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=10522

No, landuse should not be used in this way. A landuse=highway area would include not only the road surface but any adjacent right of way, for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1141377 (I recently changed it to landuse=transport, but there's no real difference). If you want to map only the area used as a highway, use surface=* or a new tag. --NE2 21:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Education

isn't it more appropriate to use something like landuse=education instead of amenity=school to map the area? often different kinds of schools share the same estate. this would mean, after the current scheme the area gets an amenity=school as do all schools on that area. this confuses basically all routing programs, which show n+1 results when searching for schools in that area. my optinion is, amenity=school should only be used on the actual facility and the landuse should be tagged with landuse=education --Flaimo 21:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This could be covered by landuse=institutional if it is adopted--Ponzu 01:11, 6 April 2011 (BST)

landuse=institutional

I think the omission of landuse=institutional is glaring. I am perusing my city's zoning papers (US) and they talk about the following land use categories: agriculture (we have much more granular farm, farming, orchard, etc., which is fine), preservation (we have leisure=nature_reserve, which is used for the same purpose), residential, commercial and institutional (covering educational and public facilities). Looks like we missed one of the big five. The other day I asked in Help how to tag a civic center. No one knew for certain. landuse=institutional would have been just the thing.--Ponzu 01:11, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Of the values taginfo reveals today, the value landuse=civil is the first one that tries to describe the same category, even if, possibly, thought of as a bit more restricted case. At 295 uses only, it's a rare occurence, but still the most popular choise. It was mentioned in some wiki proposal, which is where people have found it. Alv 02:00, 6 April 2011 (BST)

How much is landuse=public used? --NE2 04:40, 6 April 2011 (BST)

Both values may be fine for what they are, "civic" being narrower than "institutional" and "public" being a bit broad. There may be a public space where there are no amenities whatsoever. I just wanted to bring up an official zoning term that appears to have been overlooked. Okay, official for one country maybe, but still. As far as my civic center, I will be happy to retag it as landuse=civil. But if Mapnik and other rendereres don't notice and shade it, it's not much use to me. I wanted it to stand out on the map, so I followed someone's advice and made it landuse=commercial. I know, I know, don't tag for the renderer and all that. I did not feel good about it.--Ponzu 05:11, 6 April 2011 (BST)

according to tagwatch education is used 70 times, institutional is used 9 times (as of 2011-04-06) also landuse=education is not necessarily the same thing as civil, since schools and universities can also be private, so i think those should represented as separate landuse values --Flaimo 08:19, 6 April 2011 (BST)

I'd see a private school/park/stadium as still being a public/institutional use. --NE2 15:41, 6 April 2011 (BST)

No doubt that "civil" and "education" would be two different tag values. My point was (or, rather, my city government's point) was that "institutional" covers both - if we are to try and keep the number of adopted and rendered tag values manageable.--Ponzu 19:33, 6 April 2011 (BST)

I am missing a landuse key for things like courthouses, prisons, public employment agencies (Arbeitsagenturen), hospitals, state attorneys offices (Staatsanwaltschaften), local and regional administrative buildings, police departments etc. Those are primarily offices, so it could be landuse=commercial, but they do not necessarily involve or exclude making a profit, so "commercial" does not appear right. I would propose a tag "landuse=public_services", as these buildings are intended to provide a public service: for health care, security, law, public administration and related services. The tags "civil" or "public" are a little bit too vague in my opinion. Longbow4u 19:30, 22 May 2011 (BST)

I vote yes for landuse=institutional and I will start using it for land areas designated for many different things:

Government offices for all different levels of government, whether these facilities are open to the public or not.
Educational or research facilities, including libraries.
Places of worship, or other facilities operated by a religious organization.
Medical and healh care facilities.
Any public or private place where people gather for meetings or celebrations, including (but not limited to) community halls, the facilities of fraternal organizations and commercial conference centers and ballrooms.

Many buildings on these areas will be tagged as building=public or something more specific such as building=office. T99 21:03, 30 July 2011 (BST)

please don't lump together religion, healthcare and education in a too generic value. those have nothing to do which each other and in the end would need a second key again to differentiate them. also tagwatch continues to shows a trend towards separate values anyway (see links above). --Flaimo 02:49, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Leisure=Red_Light_District

Need a new laduse tag leisure=Red_Light_District to describe both legaland non-legal areas of prostitution. This includes such high profile areas as Hamburg's Reeperbahn, London's Soho and Central Amsterdam (appologese to the Dutch, I dont know the region's name).

i would use "commercial" --Flaimo 10:45, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Refining landuse=residential

I propose an additional tag to further refine landuse=residential areas:

residential=apartments - for apartments or flats, where residential units are at least partially on top of each other. This tag applies to the land area, which may have one or more apartment buildings.
residential=terraced - for townhomes or terraced houses where residential units are attached side-to-side. Each unit may have one or more floors.
residential=duplex - for duplexes, buildings that contain exactly two residential units, usually side-by-side.
residential=detached - for normal permanent standalone homes, with one or more floors.
residential=mobile - for mobile home parks or lightweight "manufactured homes" that are designed to be transportable. (This applies to areas designated for long-term residency, not for camping sites.)
residential=mixed - for areas with multiple types of residences. You could also list the types separated by semicolons, starting with the type with the greatest number of units, such as residential=terraced;duplex.

The above classification is purely physical, it does not imply any type of ownership for the land or the structures on it. In addition to residences, the land area may include other facilities (parking, recreational) designated for use primarily by the residents.

Additional tags that could be applied, if known:

name=* - for the name of the area.
operator=* - for the name of the entity that manages the area.
builder=* - for the name of the entity that originally developed the land and built the structures on the area.
min_age=55 - for a community designated for seniors (use min_age=yes if the exact age limit is not known).
max_income=yes - for a community designated for low-income residents.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

--T99 21:46, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Just one thought: could there be some other attribute of the residential area, that would also be roughly equally descriptive? The building types are already present/will be present in the building=* tagged ways inside each landuse area, so this use would be good at first, but later on just duplication. The current uses (taginfo) seem to be for four different, conflicting properties: 1) urban/rural (89% of uses so far) 2) garden 3) your proposed use 4) "by use" i.e. sheltered_housing, student_village etc. Alv 13:35, 8 August 2011 (BST)

Describing a whole area at once is far more efficient than describing individual buildings (and there are lots of areas still to be described). Consider that a typical modern detached house has 12-20 corners and an apartment building can sport 40 or more (you don't want to even start before you get hi-res aerial imagery). Of course, when one has described each and every building individually, one should remove the now duplicate tag from the landuse area. -T99 08:21, 17 August 2011 (BST)

Not saying it wouldn't be a good way to start, that is by recording the dominant house type - just that some other key might be better for the future, when the popular a=b b=c c=d kind of iterative tagging chain won't be broken in the future. Intuitively, the now most common use of residential=urban/rural isn't the best chosen key for that distinction, either. Alv 09:42, 17 August 2011 (BST)

I completely agree with Alv: what you are suggesting is tagging the predominant building type in a landuse area. I would suggest using something like building_type=*. There are numerous other properties of landuse=residential which could be used for sub-tagging (again as stated by Alv). One point, residential=sheltered_housing and residential=student_village, both tags I have used reflect not just use, but a much broader range of properties associated with the landuse (architecture, landscaping, access). For instance sheltered housing can cover modern developments but also mediaeval alms houses which are still in use. So called student villages are a very recent development in Britain associated with the rapid expansion of the university system and only exist in a small number of . It may also be interesting for older homogeneous tracts of residential landuse to identify the original nature of the development - company housing, speculative development, social housing etc. - as again this might be of value in interpreting aspects of the landuse. The key is to understand what we want from landuse values: see my blog on Augmenting Residential Landuse. [Note this should be moved to the talk page of landuse=residential]. SK53 10:30, 17 August 2011 (BST)

The method T99 suggests sounds like zoning. Many cities have zoning restrictions that specify what land may be used for. Typically these include zones for single family homes, or multi-family homes, or commercial, or industrial, or agricultural. This seems to me to be a reasonable way to use the landuse and residential tags. Or perhaps zoning needs its own set of tags. More about zoning at [3] --Modus ponens 06:07, 27 October 2011 (BST)

Landuse= -vs- Place=

Hello all, firstly I'm a n00b. I've noticed that many of the subdivision in my area are named landuse=residential polygons. I've found there also exists a feature, place=neighbourhood that to me seems like the same thing. If each neighborhood (those with platted definitions) is already mapped as a landuse=residential feature, than why have the place=neighbourhood to begin with?

Should each landuse=residential feature also have a place=neighbourhood feature over it with the same boundary perhaps? --Talllguy 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)