To what extent should I use landuse=residential and natural=wood?

I have been mapping this area and I’m a bit confused as to the extent to which I should make the natural=wood polygon go around residences, and to what extent it’s okay if some wooded area is tagged as residential and vice versa. Am I correct to assume that they probably shouldn’t overlap? If an area is wooded it will hardly be dedicated to residential development

In this case, should the two houses inside the wooded area be in their own residential bubbles? Included in the bigger one? Is it okay as is?

Should this area be mapped like this, with the natural=wood polygon going around (and the residential area including those houses accross the street as well)?

And lastly: should the two boundaries touch and be glued to each other, or is this disencouraged as it is with gluing landuse to roads?

1 Like

Probably? :thinking:

Buildings do show up OK: OpenStreetMap, & driveways should also appear.

Photo 3 with the woods back from the res area is much better!

Landuse to landuse is fine, so yes they can / should!

1 Like

Also consider the level of detail you are after. If I have a house in the middle of the woods, but a small garden with a small lawn along my driveway, it would be a minute detail to map such things. It would make sense to instead encase the entire wooded area as one polygon and have my house / lawn / garden be a multipolygon if your goal is to micromap such private access details.

they definitely can overlap, as residential area can be tree-covered

similarly, military polygon can be tree-covered

1 Like

I do a lot of landuse/nature mapping and definitely the best way to map such polygons is to “glue” them together as long as it makes sense. And in the case you’ve presented, it definitely makes sense.

Regarding natural=wood overlapping with landuse=residential, in principle I agree with Mateusz, however in this particular case I would rather map the woods and residential areas without overlaps.