Proposed features/Garden specification

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

information sign

This proposal has introduced the garden:type=* and garden:style=* tags. Although the voting in 2011 failed to pass due to insufficient voter participation, these tags are defacto established and you can use them if you like. More information about the status can be found below.
Garden specification
Proposal status: Inactive (inactive)
Proposed by: xificurk
Tagging: garden:type, garden:style=*
Applies to: node, area
Definition: Specification of garden types and aesthetic or functional styles.

Drafted on: 2010-05-18
RFC start: 2010-05-18
Vote start: 2010-06-03
Vote end: 2011-11-11


I've set this proposal as Abandoned because it has a 3 month inactive history. However, the tags are in quiet use in the wild, and I think we can redeem this proposal by renaming its garden:type tag as just garden and with a few little tweaks. As the current discussion on the Tagging mailing list[1] suggests (read the full thread!), permitting garden=* (or garden:style=*) without requiring or implying leisure=garden on an object may be a Good Thing for handling annoyingly rendering residential gardens. That'd cover my concerns at least. I'll perform some fixup and assorted necromancy here and make it "live", probably on the page for leisure=garden if that's OK - and if the list discussion comes to a consensus centring on this sort of tag. --achadwick 11:03, 24 May 2011 (BST)

IMHO as this is in active use we should stick to the definitions of this proposal, as it is useful for describing further detail. I would not tweak the key names from garden:type to garden, as this would make things unnecessarily unclearer (e.g. as opposed to garden:style).--Dieterdreist (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Pieren and User:Fkv seem to think the voting process is meaningful rather than absurd and broken, and are attempting to wake this proposal up. That's fine, but more importantly mappers have been using these tags in various forms. Here's a little breakdown of the current DB state for the suggested keys:

garden=* garden:type=* garden:style=*

If these tags are useful to you, go ahead and use them right now. I suggest we merge garden:type into garden since they seem to be about the same concept, and are both at the end of the day folksonomies. --achadwick 13:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Set a new sub-tags for leisure=garden areas.


The leisure=garden can be used for a lot of different areas varying from a small kitchen garden or a lawn around a family house to a large botanical or castle gardens. This proposal addresses this issue with two new sub-tags for gardens - garden:type=* for naming the general type and purpose of a given garden and garden:style=* for specific aesthetic or functional style of a garden (usually named after a country from which that style comes from).


Both sub-tags should be used in combination with leisure=garden only.

For specifying general type of garden use garden:type=*.

  • garden:type=residential - The most common form of garden, located in proximity to a residence, usually private access only. The main purpose is usually relaxation activities - it doesn't really matter if it is a plain lawn, or complex garden in French style.
  • garden:type=botanical - Botanical gardens are scientifically structured and labelled collections of living plants with the purpose of scientific research, conservation, display or education.
  • garden:type=castle
  • garden:type=monastery

If the garden has one major aesthetic of functional style, use garden:style=*, e.g.

Applies to

Nodes or areas, as per the current leisure=garden tag.


Gardens are already rendered as green areas. But as the number of pure residential gardens goes up, maybe it would be better to render garden:type=residential the same way as landuse=residential, since there are already some small towns and villages that look more like a natural landcover then urban areas.


Please use the discussion page.


Place your votes here

First Vote in 2010

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Xificurk 12:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time voting in a broken voting process, if the discussion was useful to you just use the tag. Chillly 12:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 there wasn't anything controversial, these tags compliment existing tags and seem somewhat useful, just go ahead and use them Delta foxtrot2 12:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
+1 and
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Dieterdreist 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
+1 and
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Laskjdfj 08:35, 13 July 2011 (BST)
+1 and
  • I don't like this proposal. Implementation details and backwards compatibility. One important detail for general cartography (residential) which will need funky special rules writing by everyone rendering a map. Rest is pretty minor stuff of interest only to specialised garden maps (which is fine, but don't make work for -everyone-!) --achadwick 17:52, 4 October 2010 (BST)

This proposal has been formally rejected in voting, because it did not get the required number of 8 positive votes even after prolongation of the voting period, but garden:type=* is in active use.

Second vote (to come)

As quite some time has passed and there was only one opposing vote, I repropose this proposal now. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you should add yourself as the proponent (i.e. change user=xificurk to user=dieterdreist and add a comment that the proposal was originally by xificurk), and start some action. --Fkv (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)