Talk:Proposed features/Garden specification

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I like the general idea of this, just not sure about the sub types. A rose garden, for instance, is normally part of a larger park or garden rather than a thing in itself. Perhaps that's ok though, in which case you might want a herb garden, water garden, rock garden (rockery) etc. I think the main thing is to differentiate between formal gardens and residential gardens.Seventy7 18:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the main reason I started this is to differentiate formal gardens and residential gardens. But I think the rosarium is ok - if it's a part of larger garden, then it's not a place "where mostly roses are grown"; this value is meant for gardens where roses are pretty much the only thing you can see there. Xificurk 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pub beer gardens

I like this proposal, but does it somehow include the gardens main usage. Only example I can currently think of right now is a pub garden (I.e one attached to a public house) aimed mainly for enjoying a drink in? Martin Renvoize 09:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We already have amenity=biergarten for that one. --Lyx 13:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
A .de biergarten is really not the same sort of thing as a .uk beer garden attached to a pub though - that's why the former tag is in German :) The right thing to do for a Brit-style pub is probably to add beer_garden=yes to the amenity=pub POI. Do that first, but if you have detailed imagery you can locate the garden itself as well: no reason not to tag it garden=beer_garden. --achadwick 15:08, 5 June 2011 (BST)

Castle/monastery

What is the difference between "castle" and "monastery" except the fact that one is near castle and the second near monastery? --Bilbo 09:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some other differences - the monastery garden is usually maintained by the monks themselves in contrast with castle garden where it's a professional gardener or specialized company; I would say the monastery garden is more of a "quite" place, etc. It is true that most of it can be deduced from the fact that garden is near castle or monastery, but I think it's better to be more specific than another vague value describing wider range of gardens. Also according to tagwatch there already are few garden_type=castle,monastery areas. Xificurk 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

differentiation

What do you want to say with garden:type? Relation to surroundings (backyard, castle, monastery, university) or type of using (scientific (botanical), as a private vegetables or flower bed). Most of your examples of garden:style are about architecture. This is fine. But what do you want to say with kitchen (type of use) and rosarium (main plant)? There exists more types of plant special gardens Erica, Rhododendron ... --vsandre 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that usually you can describe the garden by 1) the main type of usage (which is mostly in 1:1 relation to its surroundings) - garden:type - and 2) by the architecture of a garden - garden:style. kitchen style stands out a bit, but if you think about it, it's a kind of an architecture (functional style of a garden) - it excludes other styles (architectures), and it can be combined with type of residential, monastery, or even botanical; similarly for rosarium. Anyway, the proposal suggests only the most common values, I expect people will use whatever suites the purpose best, and only the time will show which values are the most popular. There were two main reasons for this proposal - differentiate residential gardens from scientific botanical, larger castle gardens etc.; and provide a "standard" way for more detailed description of gardens (if you take a look at tagwatch, there are currently many different attempts to do so). --Xificurk 23:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea behind, but your choosen tags are bit misleading. How do you want to describe a botanicle garden near a castle? Or a Japanese styled garden with roses? The problem is you combined using, architecture and surroundings in two tags. If I am totally wrong, please add some examples (with picture and detailed tagging) --vsandre 09:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There will always be some grey areas, just use a common sense. botanicle garden near a castle - is it scientifically structured and labelled collections? yes => botanical; no => castle. The same case can be a residential garden near castle and so on. I pretty much doubt you will find combination like a Japanese styled garden with roses, anyway as the proposal says rosarium is not meant for gardens where among others is a bed of roses; take a look on wikipedia:Rosarium. The problem is that trying to categorize a garden is like categorizing a music - each person has a different opinion on the number and the borders of categories... - so it doesn't make much sense try to precisely define limited number of values and force people to use only those (you can't do that anyway). As I said, I expect the time will show. --Xificurk 10:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

garden:type

For neatness and consistency with (some) other tagging schemes, I'd prefer this to be closer to the iterative refinement pattern documented at Any tags you like#Syntactic conventions for new tags. Something like:

leisure=garden
garden=residential → refines the definition
garden:style=zen → describes the stylistic qualities

somehow feels a little nicer to me. --achadwick 17:26, 4 October 2010 (BST)

Agree
That was my main thought on this proposal. We've generally avoided using the word "type" in favour of this iterative refinement pattern
-- Harry Wood 20:59, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Residential gardens (vs. interesting ones)

They need to be distinguished from the sort of garden that someone might go and visit otherwise cities and towns could end up as a blob of indistinguishable green in places where most people have gardens.

Does access=private encapsulate the distinction we need already?

Also, adding a qualification tag to leisure=garden with the intent that specific values won't get rendered by some renderers looks awfully like the situation with disused=*, a pretty awful tag which has gathered a fairly resounding "no" in the past from implementers (see the bug reports). Could something like

landuse=residential
residential=garden

represent this in a way that's more reasonable for implementers? How are you intending to ensure that this will be implemented? --achadwick 17:38, 4 October 2010 (BST)

The problem is that in most cases garden is only part of larger landuse=residential, so the residential=* would pose as the main tag on the garden area and that's kind of weird. --Xificurk 03:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Update 26th Oct: I've reported this as a bug since it's a fairly big aesthetic concern for many city districts. ticket 3302. We'll see where that goes. Leaning towards access=private myself right now. --achadwick 11:56, 26 October 2010 (BST)

Also, long German-language thread on this very topic with more examples: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9710 --achadwick 11:57, 26 October 2010 (BST)

New vote and type addition

Hi everyone.

I am looking forward to a new vote for this proposal.

One thing I was hoping to get some feedback on is the addition of a new type of garden: the "community" type. This is something that is very common in lots of countries, and it would make sense to have a different tag to differentiate private residential gardens and community veggie patches that are open to everyone (most of the time run by an organisation or the local council).

Cheers Chtfn (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are usually tagged as landuse=allotments, aren't they? The leisure tag seems redundant. --Xificurk (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if landuse=allotments is exactly the same, as those are usually not really "community" operated but strictly divided by fences and hedges. Maybe there are also other types of community gardens? E.g. those gardens found in a monastery are usually community gardens (this is also where I see a potential problem: overlap with existing values). --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dieterdreist, the landuse=allotments tag does not cover small community gardens that are open and not divided in separate plots. The gardens I am talking about are open small-scale edible gardens that tend to appear in developped cities lately, to build a sense of community, educate and promote local production of food. Not sure how applicable this tag would be to other cases. Another issue could be to define what the limit is between community garden and inner-city farmland – maybe the difference between open and private? Chtfn (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)