I have noticed some places where residential landuse has been split to the extent where there is a one landuse=residential for a group of houses or even one landuse=residential for each property, divided along property boundaries. In my opinion, mapping residential landuse in this way is unnecessary and should be merged back together where possible. However, as multiple users have added landuse in this way in the last year, there probably needs to be a discussion and then agreement on whether this style of landuse mapping is desired in OSM or not. Perhaps this kind of granular data does belong in OSM, but with a different tag such as place=plot? Note: the wiki page Tag:place=plot - OpenStreetMap Wiki has some warnings about the usage of cadastral parcels to map individual properties.
Two places where this style of mapping can be seen:
Iâm not in the UK. However, I agree with you that this pattern has few advantages and myriad disadvantages. One thing to consider is that this makes it harder to edit in general. Unnecessary complexity discouraging future mappers who would otherwise add valuable contributions is an oft-overlooked problem in the OSM community, in my opinion.
landuse is for the land use of area, not individual homes or shops. place=plot seems better for these, but I wouldnât personally spend my time mapping place=plot.
I map landuse=residential for whole blocks of houses, and try not to go over roads, but I donât think itâs a good use for individual house blocks. For suburban boundaries it might be better to map fences instead, as thatâs whatâs actually visible (e.g. like some parts of Edinburgh).
plots⊠maybe add the land registry ref codes and weâre a full extension of governing institutions. No, weâre not, but itâs creeping in in places⊠import this, import that, all made readily available for exactly that purpose. (Do though much like the city maps in the UK in places, meticulously outlined houses, ideally with 3D tagging, driveways, fences, gardens, civic numbers perfectly centered, but wont touch that with a long pole.
Unnecessary, difficuly to maintain. I wonder what kind of information people try to convey by such mapping⊠Is it fences? We already have barrier=fence for this. Is it cadastral parcels? They do not even always overlap with physical fencingâŠ
Another similar example of over-detailed mapping is people mapping landuse=farmland as individual fields based on what they see on aerial imagery. The pattern of these field may change yearly, and what then? Will someone make regular updates to these farmland polygons every single year?
A couple of examples of the latter from Poland:
This is unnecessary and can be achieved in a much better way with walls/fences and residential gardens. See how Iâve been mapping houses in Casablanca, Morocco.
I agree that mapping each property as a residential area goes too far. I feel itâs not the intent of the landuse=residential area tag.It would be acceptable for an idividual isolated residential property.
Individual properties can be shown by previously mentioned tags.
Discussion to be had on how we decide to break up residential areas in towns, cities, etc.
I feel that through-roads are not residential areas, and use these to break up residential areas in towns. Residential roads that primarily serve the Residential Area can be included in the Residential Area.
Below is an example of how I map residential areas.
In terms of farmland mapping in the UK I would strongly disagree with you on mapping individual fields.
Whilst some boundaries have been lost in recent decades they are now protected and have been unchanged for centuries (since the enclosure acts).
Whilst crops change annually in arable field, they remain arable and pasture remains pasture.
Farmers donâ't move fences and hedges, which then involve furniture for rights of way including kissing gates and stiles.
For navigation across farmland the most important thing we can map is the barriers. And in these terms OSM is the leader for this important information. Being able to choose rights of way without stiles, or a small number is vital.
I have noticed some places where residential landuse has been split to the extent where there is a one landuse=residential for a group of houses or even one landuse=residential for each property, divided along property boundaries. In my opinion, mapping residential landuse in this way is unnecessary and should be merged back together where possible. However, as multiple users have added landuse in this way in the last year, there probably needs to be a discussion and then agreement on whether this style of landuse mapping is desired in OSM or not. Perhaps this kind of granular data does belong in OSM, but with a different tag such as place=plot? Note: the wiki page Tag:place=plot - OpenStreetMap Wiki has some warnings about the usage of cadastral parcels to map individual properties
I assume where this has been done they have take the Land Registry cadastral parcels, not attempted to trace them from imagery.
Whilst it can be argued that it is too much detail, it is not wrong and whilst I wouldnât map in this detail myself I would not consider removing this level of detail.
Of course it can be easily fixed, but since some people choose to map in this way (within the last week) it wouldnât be appropriate to âfixâ all their work without a discussion first
As shown in this comment where I queried this mapping style, it is traced from cadastral parcels but not exclusively, for example where cadastrals are innacurate and donât line up with boundary fences/hedges etc.
Where you say that this kind of mapping is ânot wrongâ are you saying you think itâs ok to have one landuse=residential per house? Or just the principle of having some kind of per-house geometry is ok? Most people so far seem to agree that using landuse=residential in this way is wrong, but have more mixed feelings about place=plot
Donât get me started on people using leisure=garden in place of landuse=residential I happen to think grey blobs are useful and donât like residential areas being turned green on cartoâŠ
| 
I happen to think grey blobs are useful and donât like residential areas being turned green on cartoâŠ