AlwynWellington (2022-12-11 22:46:30+00:00): 2021 08 01 @ 20h34 james@tfg.nz
[Talk-nz] Format of land use areas. Trace around all roads or just the main drags?
Hey all,
After making updates to the Jville/Newlands/Tawa/Welly area over the past couple weeks. I’ve wondered what opinions there are on drawing out land use areas like residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
Wellington seems to follow the pattern of tracing around every single road. While Christchurch seems to have things done as large blocks with major roads being the borders. And I found both in Auckland.
So what do people think/prefer? Avoid any road overlap or only avoid major roads? Or even just ignore roads entirely?
My personal view is either to either stop at the main roads or just ignore the roads when laying out the areas. The roads are already are labelled as being primary, secondary, and tertiary. So it’s pretty clear when they’re acting as a border. Also for many of the major roads they’re going to create their own border by being an area of primarily commercial land use. Meanwhile trying to trace around every single road adds a lot of overhead of not only updating road alignments but then a way on either side that needs updating. Then are you including the footpath and berm as part of the area or do you say that’s council owned so not included?
Cheers, James.
2021 08 01 @ 21h34 adouglasclifford@gmail.com
Hi James,
I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me. If it's a wider than usual gap between areas, perhaps it merits separated areas though.
In the situations where it does border features like roads and parks etc. for existing ones, I tend to tidy it up for aesthetic purposes so that it goes along the approximate fence line of the property and excludes the kerb, as the footpath and kerb area aren't really part of the 'residential' area. When rendered in the OSM tiles it makes more sense that way as it is parallel to the road feature.
Cheers, Andrew
2021 08 01 @ 21h43 eliot@blennerhassett.gen.nz
> Hi James,
> I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me.
yes, for residential areas, with what we'd call "residential roads", I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use. If somebody wants to come in and do all the crinkly edges, they are welcome to...
 
Here is the discussion on 1 August 2021, extracted from TALK-NZ
2021 08 01 @ 20h34 james@tfg.nz
[Talk-nz] Format of land use areas. Trace around all roads or just the main drags?
Hey all,
After making updates to the Jville/Newlands/Tawa/Welly area over the past couple weeks. I’ve wondered what opinions there are on drawing out land use areas like residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
Wellington seems to follow the pattern of tracing around every single road. While Christchurch seems to have things done as large blocks with major roads being the borders. And I found both in Auckland.
So what do people think/prefer? Avoid any road overlap or only avoid major roads? Or even just ignore roads entirely?
My personal view is either to either stop at the main roads or just ignore the roads when laying out the areas. The roads are already are labelled as being primary, secondary, and tertiary. So it’s pretty clear when they’re acting as a border. Also for many of the major roads they’re going to create their own border by being an area of primarily commercial land use. Meanwhile trying to trace around every single road adds a lot of overhead of not only updating road alignments but then a way on either side that needs updating. Then are you including the footpath and berm as part of the area or do you say that’s council owned so not included?
Cheers, James.
2021 08 01 @ 21h34 adouglasclifford@gmail.com
Hi James,
I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me. If it's a wider than usual gap between areas, perhaps it merits separated areas though.
In the situations where it does border features like roads and parks etc. for existing ones, I tend to tidy it up for aesthetic purposes so that it goes along the approximate fence line of the property and excludes the kerb, as the footpath and kerb area aren't really part of the 'residential' area. When rendered in the OSM tiles it makes more sense that way as it is parallel to the road feature.
Cheers, Andrew
2021 08 01 @ 21h43 eliot@blennerhassett.gen.nz
> Hi James,
> I've seen the application vary quite a bit. As you say, sometimes it will just be large areas including roads inside them, which is fine assuming there aren't any different land uses inside the area, it saves plenty of time and still feels correct to me.
yes, for residential areas, with what we'd call "residential roads", I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use. If somebody wants to come in and do all the crinkly edges, they are welcome to...

*** end of TALK-NZ emails ***


My comments.
As far as I can see, the words from Eliot "I'm quite happy with the whole area being covered with residential land use." has not been picked up since then.

The big question is how is the detail that some seek ("do all the crinkly edges") help any user.
In OSM browsers that detail is usually not seen at level 15 downwards. The apps that I use do not render the “crinkly edges” detail.

So, seeing Eliot as the last word in the forum, all of the built-up area Grenada Village south from Grenada Drive would be marked residential area.

I noted the partial reversion in Grenada Village shows residential area “crinkly” lines drawn through building outlines. As such, the original (or the remapping) was not “precisely mapped”.

With bus stops and residential addresses and building outlines now being added, marking the "crinkly bits" becomes harder.

I will be pleased to continue the discussion in a outcome focused manner.

Kia kaha