Why landuse, and not surface?
Text removed from article: Often, if the area would no longer be actively maintained as grass, it would turn into some other natural feature; most likely into a natural=heath or natural=scrub. Likewise, even though humans take care of the landuse=grass areas, these areas are mostly not used by humans for anything other than growing said grass. Therefore, using the landuse=* is, if not justified, at least not wrong, even if it at first seems out of line with the other natural=* and surface=* uses.
I have copied this text here from the main page given that it is primarily a discussion about the tag and not of great relevance to someone wanting to use it. PeterIto 22:23, 1 June 2011 (BST)
Landuse=grass should be for areas used to PRODUCE grass! Grass is grown here, harvested (with some top soil) moved to where it is required and planted there. Back at the growing area more grass is planted, grown etc. It is a 'farm' for grass. See http://www.freshturf.co.uk/ as an example. Warin61 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is gross deviation from established usage pattern of landuse=grass in OSM. You can't redefine it without prior discussion and acceptance from community! Please revert your changes. Rafmar (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
What about mulch?
Here in Southern California, due to the recent drought, grass lawns have been replaced with mulch or gravel. I know that front lawns of houses aren't that relevant because they're rarely mapped, but there are large areas that are surfaced with mulch and I can't find a tag for that. These areas are generally not to be walked on, and they are clearly distinguished from their surroundings. For now, I just tag it with grass because they serve similar purposes (asthetics) and it shows that there's something on that area on the map. Should there be a mulch surface tag, or should I continue with what I'm currently doing. For an example of an area like this, see:  --AragonChristopherR17z (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)