OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Areas and Landuse in Wernigerode

Posted by Brian Schimmel on 26 January 2008 in English.

Yesterday I tried out the maximum capycity of my mobile phone. For GPS + audio mapping it is about 3.5 hours. I drove along the border between residential and forest areas, so I was finally able to put them into the map.

At first, I used landuse:residential and natural:wood as completely separated areas with some free space in between. If there was a road between them, I had three parallel ways, each one with its own nodes.

Afterwards, I merged the ways / nodes, so that residential and wood now "touch" each other at the road. This looks a lot nicer in the map, but the JOSM validator plugin now complains about overlapping ways. Am I doing things right?

As well, I now took care of the proper tagging of cycleways, footways and tracks, which are mostly distinguishable in our wood areas, were most ways are "Wanderwege" but commonly used by bikers. That means, as a guidway I used the questions "Does this feel like a cycleway? Would I recomend it to a biker? Would it be possible to drive a car right here?". I hope this meets the common sensus, too.

Same goes for rivers and streams. In the T@H map, rivers look too wide and streams too small, so what to take? I tried to make some compromise.

Location: Hasserode, Wernigerode, Landkreis Harz, Saxony-Anhalt, 38831, Germany
Email icon Bluesky Icon Facebook Icon LinkedIn Icon Mastodon Icon Telegram Icon X Icon

Discussion

Comment from amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ on 26 January 2008 at 14:02

Hi Brian,

Re: The overlapping ways. I've been doing what you're doing, having them touch. I don't know what's the offical policy is, but I think it makes sense. I think it's kinda pointless to have many ways less than a metre apart.

Comment from HaraldK on 26 January 2008 at 19:55

Hi Brian,

reading osm.wiki/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway I get the impression that cycleway as well as pedestrian are meant to be used inside residential areas or in parallel to roads. In the forest I would rather chose highway=track (see osm.wiki/index.php/Map_Features) and tag it as bicycle=yes. If it is not really wide, i would chose footway and nevertheless may add bicycle=yes depending on circumstances. But these are just my preferences.

HaraldK

Comment from linse on 3 March 2008 at 17:25

Hi Brian,
a bit late for a comment, but two minutes ago i had the same problem...
If you have only two touching areas, you can split the overlapping way away from _both_ circular ways, then you won't get a validator-error.

But i'm pretty sure, that this shouldn't been done.
Because when you have three areas side by side, the one in the middle won't survive this procedure.
Example: "B" will not survive.
------------
| | | |
| A | B | C |
| | | |
-----------

So, in my opinion it's the validator, that needs fixing, it should ignore overlapping ways from "connected circular ways"...

How did you make a compromise with rivers/streams? Because i have a "Bächle" near my village, which i refused to map, because the normal "Bach" is tagged as stream yet (although i can't jump over it, it's obviously many times smaller than the Rhein). There definitly is missing one category for waterways... (or i missed one)

joe.linse

Comment from linse on 3 March 2008 at 17:27

p.s.: ok, so the nice painting got f**d up (removed all the whitespace), hope you understand it nonetheless...

Log in to leave a comment