Talk:Tag:landuse=greenfield

Is there any notion of requiring some documentation of impending development? --Ceyockey 05:16, 13 June 2012 (BST)

According to Wikipedia this is not required.

Undeveloped land

What does the term "undeveloped land" exactly mean? Is a building site inside a residential area, with no permanent structures on it, neighboured by residences and accessible through the road network, attached to utilies (water, gas, electricity), grass growing on it but legally you can build, is this "undeveloped"? And the same situation without the attachment to the utility networks? So it is the same as a building site with no road leading there, no attachment to the utility networks and no completed constructions nearby? --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect this tag has come from the British terminology of "greenfield land". It is often used to refer to, for example, agricultural fields or pastures which the owner has been granted planning permission to build on (e.g., a new housing development on the edge of town). In terms of your example, I think it probably depends on the history of the site. If anything existed there before (at least in modern times) then it's more likely to be landuse=brownfield. If some preparatory work has been undertaken (including laying utilities) then it's more likely to be landuse=construction. If it is a (normally significantly-sized - rather just a plot for a single dwelling) spare plot of land, that has never been developed, but has permission to develop on - then yes, it is possibly landuse=greenfield. Casey boy (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A common situation I have seen often is a residential area, where some plots have not been built on, sometimes for decades, i.e. they are either unused land or still used as farmland, or used as a garden, but legally you could build there. From a legal point of view, I would consider them "greenland". --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really a landuse

The contradiction with this tag is that it is not really a landuse. Unlike landuse=brownfield or landuse=construction, this tag doesn't tell us about the physical feature or its usage. Often, greenfields are better described with other landuse=* tags (e.g. landuse=farmland, landuse=meadow, or landuse=grass). Hence why it is no longer rendered in OSM carto. As the description page notes, greenfield describes a legal status - which is something better represented by the designation=* key. Casey boy (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I would even dispute idea of mapping it in OSM Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why. I certainly feel like it should only be a secondary tag (such as designation). The current land use should be the primary tag. I doubt there would be many instances where another landuse tag wouldn't be more appropriate until construction actually starts. Unfortunately, even without Carto rendering, usage of this tag is increasing. Casey boy (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)