Proposed features/Farmyards, farm buildings

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This proposal corresponds to map feature Tag:landuse=farmyard.

Farmyards, farm buildings
Proposal status: Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by: *
Tagging: residence=farm
Applies to: node
Definition: Abandoned. See Tag:landuse=farm

Rendered as: labelled

There is no official Map Features listing for farms or indeed other isolated residences (such as country houses) yet. I would like to propose the "residence" tag as that is what I have been using in my own tagging, it's what osmeditor2 does behind the scenes and it seems to fit in with the general spirit of Map Features.

  • residence=farm: Farm house
  • residence=house: General house located in the countryside, useful for navigation
  • residence=country_house: Large country house
  • man_made=barn: Barns, again worth marking for navigation


yes there is: landuse=farm which can be both node and/or area

Well, yes and no. I don't know who proposed this, but there is a subtle difference between identifying a farm and identifying the location of the main farm, station (Aus) or ranch buildings. A more concrete example might be the club house of a golf club. leisure=golf_course,name=XYZ Golf Club may identify the course but does not identify the location of the building. A general poi= category may be looking at further?? MikeCollinson 06:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why a farm house is different to any other house, appart from that there is a higher chance that the residence will probably work on the farm, and probably have some ownership or management of the farm, and the house is probably placed within the farm; The house is still the same. Theres not a residence=town, or residence=village tag, so why have residence=farm? The map makes it clear where the building is by the placement of other features. I think landuse=agriculture is better than landuse=farm for the area; building=yes/barn/whatever can cover the buildings themselves. Even going further to say landuse=rape/rice/grapes/whatever may be needed at somepoint, although after mapping such areas that would need this, I think tagging the landscape to such detail is very hard without making the area of data into quite a complex mess. Landuse=farm sounds incorrect though also, the land is used for farming..its doesn't export/make/house farms. (minor note: landuse=commercial covers most western farms anyway, although its quite unspecific.) Ben. 04:01, 29 March 2007 (BST)
  • Landuse=commercial would cover almost any forest area in western countries as well, so that tag is certainly not discriminative enough. --Lambertus 13:47, 29 March 2007 (BST)
  • Actually, although I see your point, and commercial is very vage, landuse=wood exsists, and I use it in that sence. Ben. 02:54, 30 March 2007 (BST)

So far as I can see this proposal is best covered by the proposals for one or more farm building types (farm, barn, etc?) in Proposed_features/Building and by a landuse value for agriculture. There's also a discussion of different crops for the landuse in Proposed_features/Crop. To my mind we need to know there's a particular farm (with a name) here, there are these particular farming buildings, and these fields where crops are grown and/or animals are reared (though there are practical concerns with specifying which crops/animals covered in Crop proposal). TomChance 09:29, 29 March 2007 (BST)

I agree, I thing the building= tag makes this discussion redundant and suggest the proposal, as such, be abandoned. MikeCollinson 20:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)