Temporarily reverted due to unexplained changes to ref for all Overground lines and deletion of 7 relations
changeset/167033931

Temporarily reverted due to unexplained changes to ref for all Overground lines and deletion of 7 relations
changeset/167033976

I've found this thread which might be relevant to you, I've only skimmed over it https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/exclude-residential-roads-from-residential-area/108924

There's nothing to read, it's just my own personal mapping style! I make use of osmuk cadastral parcels to trace landuse according to property boundaries. Basically anything that's part of a private residence inc. garden and driveway goes inside residential landuse and everything else doesn't (multi-property garages, pavements, shared parking areas). Any argument will be over whether mapping to that level is a good use of time, but certainly there's nothing wrong with adding more detail in the way I have done. The primary-tertiary example was here for Bristol only where my goal is to split up the multipolygon only, not to create extremely detailed landuse as I have done elsewhere.

Here I'm not splitting it as much as I usually would, just for the sake of time. My primary goal is to eliminate all 'inner' areas, so I will divide the landuse along a road that helps me to reach the area (eg a school) so that I can exclude it while only using simple polygons. I will definitely make sure it's split by primary, secondary tertiary roads, and then also split off sections that are only connected to the main blob by a relatively thin area. In places I've done to an extreme (i.e. Bushey, Herts) residential landuse never crosses even a residential road, lines up with property boundaries perfectly and has carve-outs for all other landuse like allotments, grass and substations. I have run some overpass turbo queries over Wales recently to find the absolute largest residential landuses and split them up.

Tldr: No, don't do it!

Hi, the huge residential multipolygon is not a standard way of representing a city's landuse areas, hence why I have been gradually splitting pieces off with the ambition of eliminating it altogether. The reason that the more central areas are not part of the MP (anymore) is because they are only simple polygons, if you look at the relation currently it only contains residential areas that have 'inner' ways and these require more work to simplify.

What is this? Is it some kind of organisation or club? Is there a website or some information about it? Currently the tags used to describe it are incorrect.

Hi, just a note to say you might want to review some of your edits to terraced houses here, where you have drawn individual houses on top of existing buildings, you have not deleted the original terrace resulting in overlapping buildings for example with way/1137740940

My pleasure. My personal reason was because of all the nonexistent stations and junctions being shown on the new OpenRailwayMap vector version, which no longer shows abandoned and razed railways. I explained my rationale and methodology here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-removal-of-railway-site-tagging-for-the-renderer-in-gb/129969
Nominatim disruption was mentioned in a previous thread by SomeoneElse.

This you? ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/pettyrevenge/comments/1kqiuda/my_neighbour_got_into_a_beef_with_an_open_street/

I added some access tracks going up to the edge of the river as they are still visible on aerial imagery, if you surveyed here and there was absolutely no trace of them feel free to remove them again. (changeset/166228228)

I changed this building back to building=farm which (despite the unclear tag) is for a farmhouse building. If it's a holiday home as according to your comment, you could add tourism=chalet for a simple rentable holiday home or tourism=guest_house for a B&B

Hi, you should not add barrier=fence to garden areas and instead draw them separately, as they are rendering up against building walls where no fence exists and overlapping where two gardens connect and only one fence should exist

Hey, could you please explain why you are mapping residential parcels in this way.

Changeset reverted as you also deleted Sainsbury's superstore. I also marked the cafe as disused:amenity instead of leaving it deleted.

That's a shame, I was hoping it was real!

Is 52.7190167, -0.6371758 a real housenumber?!

Hi, why have you created individual landuse=residential for each property here? Using cadastral parcels to replicate plots is not a standard mapping practice...

Ok, thanks. We were discussing it and thought it was funny!