From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

name of residential areas

I added some sentence about the name of these areas. A village contains more than residential. It contains also commercial, industrial and others. It makes sense, to use a area instead of a node for the village, which contains all kinds of landuse in that village, but using residential and name=<village_name> is no good idea. --MeastroGlanz (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Lots of hamlets & villages these days are pretty much all residential and for these it would be silly not to put place=* and name=* on the residential area too. --Hjart (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Same goes for buildings. If you have a building with a name, which has a shop in it. No matter if you use multivalue or not, there is no nice way to attribute one name to a semantic object. Better explicit than implicit. And the same logic applies here. --MeastroGlanz (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In my experience it usually works quite fine. No need to use multivalue or similar tricks --Hjart (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
See the discussion about nodes vs areas for place=neighborhood and other place=* settlement tags. Many mappers do not believe that named places are limited to a defined boundary, so most named settlements are mapped as nodes only. The areas of named administrative boundaries, such as those related to addresses, can be mapped with boundary=*.--Jeisenbe (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There are lots of named places, which are not administrative units, but are practically quite well defined though. Please tell me that i.e. area 143111325 isn't. There's a lot of confusion and right-out bull shit going around in the discussions around place names in OSM. Over the years I felt increasingly sad that villages etc were always mapped as points only and then a few years ago started experimenting with converting to areas and found that for most danish villages it actually works quite well, since they are usually fairly compact. --Hjart (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Touching roads or not

I have a rule of thumb for determining whether landuse areas should touch the roads along their edges. If homes / businesses in the landuse area are accessed from that road, then I draw the landuse area attached to the road. On the other hand, if there is no access (for example, a main road passes behind the houses in a development, and the houses can only be accessed from streets within the development) then I draw the landuse area only to the edge of the road's right-of-way. Vid the Kid 05:54, 23 September 2010 (BST)

good rule, you should include it in the text. If you dont and I dont forget it, I will. --MeastroGlanz (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In my experience a good rule is to keep landuse areas separate from any highway=* --Hjart (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. When changes to a major highway's tagging must be made, having to unglue and reconnect all these shared nodes is both tedious and error prone. AlaskaDave (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I also agree. I tend to try & use the boundaries of property parcels facing the road as the boundary. This sort of recognises an implicit landuse=highway. Note this only applies at the edges of a residential area: I do not map each block separately. A correlate which is trickier is when two residential areas abut each other. I think in most cases I know this is also along property lines, but in some cases it may be logical to use the highway separating them. SK53 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Density threshold?

Should there be some kind of density threshold for using landuse=residential?

Here in Central Ohio, just a bit outside the suburbs, it's common for many of the farm roads to be lined with residential properties not related to the farms behind them. These properties can be an acre to several acres in area, usually containing just a single (sometimes large) house. Many of these properties extend a considerable fraction of a mile away from the road (sometimes even more than a mile) and the house can be situated in the middle or the back of the lot. It's a situation of extremely low-density housing development, yet because there are no gaps between the residential properties, they form very large blocks of residential landuse. I think while landuse=residential is technically correct, it seems possibly misleading to apply the tag to such large areas with so few houses. Vid the Kid 06:05, 23 September 2010 (BST)

See abutters=residential. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:53, 18 July 2011 (BST)


In areas where you have named residential areas, it would be very handy to have a slight outline in MapNik for this style to separate them. See:

Further refining: residential=*

People seem to be using residential=* as a way of further refining what kind of residential area a place is. Another example of iterative refinement. Here are some of the current top values and what I think they mean. We should probaly write these up and add descriptions on the main page if everyone agrees. --achadwick 16:54, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Key Value Description
residential rural General additional tag describing residential areas in a rural location.
residential urban General additional tag describing residential areas in an urban location.
residential gated A gated community[1], closed off behind fences and gates with strictly controlled entrances. Ideally, tag each individual building or house with its own areabuilding=*.
residential garden Garden areas within a residential area? Probably better than amenity=garden for boring back gardens on private property.
residential sheltered_housing An area of residential housing for older and/or disabled persons[2]. Ideally, tag each individual building or house with its own areabuilding=*.
residential student_village Communities of dense accommodation, restricted to students and possibly gated. Usually run by for-profit companies (UPP etc), with heavy advertising etc. Not necessarily on campus, and a major feature of urban environments. Ideally, tag each individual block or hall with its own areabuilding=*.

The tagging wonk in me wants to say something like residential=student_housing student_housing={student_village|halls_of_residence|...}'. Would that be a better way of having both a general "housing for students" tag and some specific values? I may give this a go. --achadwick 14:21, 19 May 2011 (BST)

See this proposal for an alternative refinement scheme. I think terms like "rural" and "urban" usually describe the entire milieu in general, not just a single lanfuse area. (In any case, one could combine multiple tag values with semicolons: residential=terraced;urban. Finally, I don't like tagging private gardens separately as residential areas as nobody actually resides in the garden (usually). -T99 10:17, 17 August 2011 (BST)

landuse on a node

To map landuse on a node seems a tagging error. JOSM treated it the same way. An icon indicating this is displayed and the Validator shows a warning for that.

The wiki should show the right way to tag something. Of course we are open to a broad spectrum, but mistakes are mistakes. --geozeisig (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

landuse on node is the same as fixme=* - OK to map, but indicator that something should be improved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Addresses for Residential Landuse

A user recently added an address to a landuse containing a group of apartment buildings. Is this correct? I would have assumed that it is better to added the addresses within and to the buildings themselves and not to the landuse containing the buildings. Anyone have any thoughts on this? IanVG (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If the address does apply to the entire area, this is correct. --- Kovposch (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
there is no universal reply to this question, it depends on the local jurisdiction. In Germany, housenumbers are at least assigned to a building plot (regardless of buildings actually being built, and not referring to buildings but to the plot), in Italy the numbers are assigned to building entrances and gates, each of them gets one, even secondary entrances, and potential entrances (shop windows etc.). Adding an address to a polygon is fine as long as it is valid on all of the polygon. —Dieterdreist (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)