# Proposal:Tag:allotments=plot

 The Feature Page for the approved proposal Allotment Plot is located at Tag:allotments=plot
allotments:plot
Proposal status: Approved (active)
Tagging: allotments=plot
Applies to: area
Definition: Defines an individual parcel of land within an allotment
Statistics:

Rendered as: Area polygon
Draft started: 2013-09-17
RFC start: 2013-09-18
Vote start: 2013-09-20
Vote end: 2013-10-06

## Summary

allotments=plot will be a sub-tag of landuse=allotments.

An allotment plot defines an individual parcel of land within an allotment. Wikipedia refers to the singular (which is what this proposal hopes to define) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_(gardening) and gives some regional naming differences.

Each allotment plot will be rented by local authority to an individual or group as a tenant. Preference is usually given to those within the local area and there is generally a waiting list.

An allotment plot being of a defined size and having clear bounds. A landuse=allotments may describe a collection of plots, but is not the singular because of the definition of landuse=allotments

This information is arguably more useful as individuals/groups will cultivate on a certain plot, not anywhere within the allotment bounds.

## Reasoning

Individual/groups rent one or more plots on an allotment, so it is useful to make the distinction at this level rather then to simply plot the bounds of the whole allotment

In the future tags may also indicate the status of a plot i.e. vacant/ under-cultivated. This is useful as many allotment waiting lists are oversubscribed and allotment associations may have strict rules against under-cultivation

## Example & Description

To give an example I rent an allotment plot on Cecil Avenue allotments here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.78394/-1.77741. This is correctly tagged as landuse=allotments. Within that area I have defined the plots (3) that I rent as an area currently tagged as allotments=plot. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.78461/-1.77745. With this proposal I would seek to define each allotment plot as a separate area with its own tag, avoiding overlapping landuse=* polygons.

## How to Map

Define an area within an area tagged as landuse=allotments.

Way A = landuse=allotments

Way B = allotments=plot

## Voting

Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and give your reasons to oppose. Use ~~~~ to sign your user name & date.

• I approve this proposal. - I like this tagging proposal. It provides for tagging an overall area of allotments but allows tagging of individual plots within that. SnaxMuppet (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. This seems to be a simple and obvious solution for those who want to add the detail of individual allotment plots. While not exactly natural language, I agree that the use of the pleural (allotments) in the key name is preferable, to match the existing landuse=allotments tag. -- Rjw62 (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Dieterdreist (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. more clear with the figure. --Pieren (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I can't see why it should be necessary to map single plots as areas. Mapping the whole area as landuse=allotments and mapping any fences as barrier=fence, to me that's enough. IMO OSM shouldn't map individual parcels|estates|etc. as areas. /al 12:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• As mentionned, plots can be managed by some kind of charity organizations or clubs. In this case, I don't see a problem to use OSM for helping their localization. --Pieren (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Escada (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. agree that community gardens may want to micromap their plots and OSM could be a great tool for keeping the data. Neuhausr (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Danstowell (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--KonfrareAlbert (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Straightforward and useful solution. Choess (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The question about the difference between "Parcel, lot, plot" in the equally named topic on the discussion page has not yet been answered. It seems to me that a plot is some kind of parcel. I think that mapping parcels is a good thing because then we can set addresses on the parcels. But why should we do that for parcels in allotments only? I would like to see a more general approach such as boundary=parcel. --Fkv (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Boundary is useful as a tag if you are only interested in the bounds and not what is contained within an area. Those of us mapping allotment plots are interested in the properties of the plot area. Bounds are not strictly or competitively enforced like freehold property, that is another area of mapping altogether.
• I am not seeking to define parcel here at all. The word parcel is sometimes used interchangeably (in US english) to mean plot, that is the only relation. And I do not mention once the word 'lot'. The word I have chosen to define is plot.
• Parcel may well benefit from a tag of it's own but it wouldn't have any application here in the context you describe. You shouldn't see this as an overlap or as a competing definition of "parcel. An allotment plot can be as little as 50 sq. metres. It certainly would have an address of it's own, just a plot number which is arbitrary anyway.--Growbradford (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• If plots have plot numbers instead of addresses, your proposal should make a statement on how to tag them. Otherwise there would be no information left that only applies to plots. Your example (way 17938348) could as well be tagged as a club=*. --Fkv (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. This proposal is totally incorrect. First, it uses allotments namespace incorrectly: namespaces is used to refine beaning of broader tag (e.g. highway=service + service=alley), not to tag sub-objects. If someone introduces allotment subtypes, these will clash with allotments=plot. Next, it doesn't belong to allotments at all: there may be landuse=residential or landuse=commercial with separate plots as well, so common tag should be used. There's somewhat used boundary=lot, and it's much closer to what this proposal should be. Also I though that we have a default of 14 days for voting. AMDmi3 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I totally agree with AMDmi3 and suggest boundary=lot. --Surly (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I totally agree with Pieren --Bredy 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• If you agree with Pieren, then Pieren has voted yes
• Excuse I read wrong line, the user is /al
• I oppose this proposal. I agree with AMDmi3 Wowik (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. On namespace grounds Brycenesbitt (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. HillWithSmallFields (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I agree with AMDmi3 and suggest tags boundary=lot and lot=, which are already in use. Dinamik (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)