The beginning of the article goes to great lengths to argue that landuse=park is inappropriate, but we have landuse=cemetery later in the article. In fact, the summary seems to be at odds with how the landuse tag is being used: What's the appropriate way to tag the farmland associated with a single farm? I'm sure most people would use landuse=farm, and I'm not aware of an alternative. Robx 12:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- yes, i put that there, removed now. i'm concerned that landuse is being used as a dumping ground for any random tag tht doesn't fit well elsewhere, with the consequence that the tags under it become horribly inconsistent, with no real common theme. more discussion is needed Myfanwy 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original intention was that landuse was exactly that, ie what use the land is being put to. At the start I only saw two land area tags, natural=to cover land that has not been worked or landuse= for land that has. Farmland would fall under the landuse tag whereas uncultivated (historically) land would not. blackadder 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- great, that makes sense. there are several landuse tags that continue to make a lot of sense in a similar way (i.e. they are consistent), such as residential, commercial, retail, industrial. These appear consistent, as they can be used as a general description for an area of land occupied by many different entities.
- However, we then get into the not so consistent usage, such as cemetery, quarry, forest, military, reservoir,..... and so on. As far as i can see, these are no longer general descriptions for an area, but are far more specific, and deserve to be elsewhere. Put it another way: the landuse tags appear to be a way of saying "i'm not going to map every entity in this area, it's too complicated/of no value - instead, i'm going to map one big piece of land, encompassing them all and tag it with a general tag which sums up which each of them do". problem is, we have a lot of tags that can map each individual entity, which is very inconsistent. a general overview of what landuse is for would help tag proposal discussions no end, as it would mean we could refer back to it when we create a new tag Myfanwy 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think we'd want to keep landuse=residential even in areas where every single house and every single lot has been mapped. Robx 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- what for? when every residential property is tagged, the sum of all those areas will be exactly the same as the previously tagged landuse area. we will be tagging one area of land twice, with two tags with the same information stored in them Myfanwy 22:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because not every application of our data is interested in the same level of detail. Generating a landuse=residential polygon for say a zoom 12 tile from individual buildings and lots is needlessly complicated. Even at the same zoom level a map for e.g. a real estate agent and one for canal boaters will probably be rendered with different details. Besides most likely the landuse polygon is drawn long before all the details and would still be in the database, but just not visible to normal queries. --Cartinus 05:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that landuse=military is an appropriate use of the landuse tag.
- well, we can easily tag any military item with a more specific tag. they are generally one of : firing range, naval base, air base, arms dump, etc., etc. landuse looks to have been initially created where we don't know/can't find out what's there. could you go into more detail why you think military is appropriate? can you give an example that does not fit in an existing military= tag, or that cannot have one created? Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that landuse has been abused as a generic area-tag. How about extending Key:area to allow arbitrary values that don't fit anywhere else? That way when people want to tag an area for which no appropriate category exist, they'd just put in an area=my_new_type_of_area. Then by analyzing what area= has been used for, we might find other sensible categories.
- i see what you're getting at, but really there's no reason why we can't come up with a tag for everything that's significant enough to tag, either by slightly expanding (in a consistent way) an existing tag, or creating one new. there should be no generic areas without an appropriate category. can you think of any? Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- sorry, i didn't read your item properly first time. yes, this is a good way of discovering new tags, you're right, whether the tag comes before the use or not isn't too important. i think this is how a lot of mappers work. the key now is to get the information out of planet and into the tag proposals system. i've been looking at tagwatch recently, and have been toying with using that to manually seed the new 'proposed features' page Myfanwy 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of landuse= and natural= is that we should be able to cover the whole map with these. The area covered by a motorway might be tagged as landuse=transportation. In that case, what should a cemetery fall under? Robx 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- my understanding of landuse is "to categorise the general use of an area of land" i.e. if an area of land is 90% houses, it gets tagged landuse=residential, even if there is a small shop in the area, a church, a park, a small cemetery or whatever. the cemetery (amenity=cemetery) would then be tagged separately, on top of the landuse tag, as would the church, the park and the shop Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- you're right i think about the motorway though, there should probably be something similar to landuse=railway . in case you're wondering, i consider landuse=railway to be valid, as railway land is often hard to tag more specifically; there is often little demarcation between separate areas (sidings, general rail corridor, marshalling yards, maintenance areas). plus of course it's generally illegal to trespass on it, and very dangerous, which makes it hard to map Myfanwy 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- To me this sounds inconsistent. All those separate entities on the railway land are owned by a single company. Most often the whole area is fenced with a single fence too. Just like the cemetery consists of lots of separate items (burial plots, walk ways, contemplation building, gardeners shed, flower kiosk) managed by a single entity (local council or religious organisation). So to me it is not strange to find them in the same category. --Cartinus 06:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
maybe we should be considering replacing landuse with council zoning regions? most cities will have areas where certain activities are allowed, e.g. retail, residential, industrial, etc. and certain areas where they are not Myfanwy 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Having to look up something basic like this at your local council hall sounds way to complicated/official to me for a map that is supposed to be made by average geeks who are walking/riding/driving around with their GPS and just observing what they see. --Cartinus 06:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- If we would do this, then I think you'll loose the discussion at the surface mine proposal. I'm pretty sure most countries have a separate zoning category for that. --Cartinus 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it correct to map the whole of a town as landuse'd residential. This was done recently on one of my local towns -- but unfortunately, osmarender doesn't see landuse as a "meta-layer", and treated implicitly as layer "0" -- which meant that overnight all of the tunnels disappeared from the map that were (correctly) mapped as layer "-1". Hopefully, retagging the landuse area as place="town" should cure this, but keep the spirit of the tagging.
Total mess --> landuse=garages
Urgent cleanup needed for to feature desciption. Please see dicussion Talk:Tag:landuse=garages