search

openstreetmap / iD

🆔 The easy-to-use OpenStreetMap editor in JavaScript.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id
ISC License
3.36k stars 1.21k forks source link

Separation of 'land use' features and 'land cover' features by selectable layer #4627

Open skylerbunny opened 6 years ago

skylerbunny commented 6 years ago

Currently, the 'layers' separation in iD considers 'land use' in a large single group, which can be enabled or disabled by one checkbox.

It would be nice if it was possible to separate 'land use' "purposed" features (like residential, industrial, railway, retail, miltary' from things that I would consider more 'land cover' natural features (meadow, grass, wood, etc.)

It can get really confusing on the map to try to edit adjoining or overlapping areas involving both sets of data, especially when it's often true that land cover features don't perfectly align with land use (natural=wood may be larger than a military area, or a grass area may extend into several different land use types, and so on).

Ultimately these two "sets" are aiming at different map development anyway: one is a set of topographical features - (what natural or artificial physical feature covers this given area), and the other is aiming toward zoning (regardless of what natural feature exists here, this is what its intended use is). Having them on separate layers will make it easier to edit on them, particularly as more and more features of this type appear on the map in the first place.

1ec5 commented 6 years ago

A great example of this distinction is where a residential subdivision extends into a wooded area. Even if OSM’s concept of landuse doesn’t perfectly align with local zoning regulations, some mappers prefer for the landuse=residential area to include the wooded backyards but would rather not deal with natural=wood areas at the same time they map the subdivisions or vice versa.

bhousel commented 6 years ago

I think what you are asking for is - not specifically support for landcover=* (see #4272 on why we aren't supporting it) - but rather just splitting up the "landuse" feature filter into 2 filters. One for more "natural/landcover" kinds of features and one for more "zoning/landuse" kinds of features. Do I have it right?

skylerbunny commented 6 years ago

Basically, yes. Because, in any case, landcover=* doesn't effectively encompass all of the features that I'd like filtered separately, such as natural=wood. (This may require some iterative narrowing to get it 'right' over time, but you'd almost certainly get smaller type issues that are one-offs, e.g. 'Can you move this into the 'land cover' as consensus is reached.

The problem I'm asking to help solve through this issue is being able to create close together or joined together landuse type areas/multipolygons (brownfield, residential, railway, retail, etc.) that don't have to create noise for editors who want to create areas for what features exist on the ground (trees, grass, ,etc.). I admit I don't have a perfect and fully comprehensive list off the top of my head for this, but I suspect as described above an intuitive separation would be reached over time.