Many separate areas tagged as Residential Area instead of buildings

[caspermonte]

Take a look at

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/13.8633/121.9460.

Is this acceptable practice or subject for correction?

[alesarrett]

Hi, it seems to me a very rough first mapping of residential information. It is not wrong per se. Of course, next steps should refine the border of the residential areas excluding forest, etc. and then of course buildings should be mapped (residential areas and buildings are obviously not mutually exclusive, indeed mapping should be done for both)

[kartonage]

This was mapped during a specific HOT (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team) mapping task which asked the contributors to do the following:

Map out settlements, built-up areas, villages and other communities. The region has many rural communities, called purok or sitio, where multiple houses are clustered together and adjacent to farmlands, plantations, and coastal areas. Identify groups of at least 3 houses, and consider other contexts such as roads are important in identifying such a community. Also, the houses are within easy walking distance of each other.

Draw a neat polygon around those communities and tag them with landuse=residential. Thank you so much for helping!

I suppose you could use the existence of the residential areas to search for buildings to map. There may have been follow up mapping tasks to draw in the missing buildings. But generally you can map what you want anytime.

In this case I would suggest either just mapping the buildings/improving the shapes or trying to find a better solution with the local community concerning the mapping of "purok"s and "sitio"s in a different way if you find it unsuitable.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

It’d probably be worth commenting on a changeset (in a language the mapper is likely to understand) and politely explain that the instruction was “Identify groups of at least 3 houses”.