Talk:Land use

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Landuse)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page move

Hello all, I'd like to help with the land use wiki if that would be okay. One thing I have picked up is that there has been an inconsistency in spelling - the concept is 'land use' (two words) while the tag is 'landuse' one word. As this page is about the concept would it be okay to rename/move it to 'Land use'? Thanks, Nick NickJOB 22:30, 9 Mar 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know if you'll see this, but if you do end up changing the title of this article, ensuring that other articles successfully redirect is a must. I'm mostly ambivalent about changing the title at all to be honest.--IanVG (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Page moved, redirect exists Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Resolved: Seems fixed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Page look & feel

Is there a reason why a new header replaced the more conventional "Key-Value-Element-Description-Image-Count" found in all other feature key documentation? Similarly, the discussion of the UK National Land Use Database versus Openstreetmap is not appropriate here. A wiki page should have been created for those in the UK who wish to discuss it. --Jfd553 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


For example a leisure=park tag may be used to describe a park within a landuse=residential area, or for a very large park may be the primary landuse.

this sounds reasonable to me but the rendering is confusing: this whole area is a park in a residential area but it is rendered grey because the leisure=park is rendered below landuse=residential. shouldn't it be the other way around? --Shmias 15:39, 27 March 2012 (BST)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

When to use landuse?

Should we plop down landuse polygons as if we were trying to create zoning map -- for example, place a big landuse=retail over a big set of commercial lots? Or should we reserve it for wholly owned or collectively operated areas -- for example, a shopping center gets landuse=retail but the two auto shops and a taco stand next to each other don't; an apartment complex gets landuse=residential but a subdivision or legacy neighborhood does not.

Which is the convention or what should it be? My thinking is the latter makes most sense. Since we can tag buildings as building=retail and also shop= and amenity= makes it obvious, putting a landuse=retail around a cluster of unrelated buildings is redundant and adds new information; where as in a shopping center it can identify the center grounds. - KTyler 23:39, 15 June 2012 (BST)

In practice "plop down landuse polygons as if we were trying to create zoning map" is a very common way people are putting landuse at the moment. E.g. landuse=retail around a big set of shops which are not related exept that they are next-to eachother. However people do also sometimes put a name tag and other such things on a landuse=retail, and use it to delineate a set of related shops e.g. in a retail park. So both approaches are used. The first approach, plopping down, is more prevalent in the data -- Harry Wood (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


A tag like landuse=mine_dump would be nice for - guess it - a dumping area. Maybe better landuse=dumping_area + dumping=mining_waste Ogmios 23:52, 14 September 2012 (BST)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why the SimCity urban landuse classification system is bad

  1. Is a hotel commerical or residential? What about serviced apartments? What if the building offers apartments with varying tenancy lengths?
  2. Is a car sales yard that also operates as a garage commercial or industrial?
  3. Is a printers workshop commercial or industrial or retail? What if it's shop for people to do photocopying?
  4. Is a hairdresser commercial or retail?
  5. Is a movie theatre commercial or retail? A strip club? A brothel?
  6. How do you classify churches, museums, training institutions, social clubs?
  7. Most multi-story buildings are used for different purpose on the lower floors from the higher floors. Which takes precedence?

The area where I live is filled with all kinds of examples like the above, and there's no particular pattern. One building will have a restaurant in the bottom, with apartments above and the next will have a workshop in the bottom with offices above.

For most of the cities I've seen, a better classification scheme would look something like this:

  • Town centre -- for the mixed-use walkable area in the centre of a city, town or large suburb
  • Light commercial -- for areas that contain cheaper office space, maybe some industrial businesses and the kind of shops you'd usually drive to
  • Industrial estate -- for areas of almost exclusively industrial use, typically near railway lines and without footpaths
  • Residential -- for predominantly residential areas outside of the town centre
  • Various specialist categories like business parks, schools, universities, prisons, military

Ben Arnold (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I received some helpful suggestions about how to navigate the current landuse classification scheme on the forums:

Ben Arnold (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve the usage of landuse (and related Problems)

All of these suggestions should be applied and explicitly mentioned within the documentation.

Suggestions not related to the problems below:

  • There is no page which explicitly explains (with examples) how to tag anything related to landuse=*.
  • Areas tagged as landuse should not share any node with ways tagged as highway=* by default. (Some contributors argue that sharing nodes eases the rework. In fact it complicates the tagging for highways - which is much mor important - and produces mistakes due to very small highway-ways)
    • I agree, if not described then it should be mentioned that such gluing is a bad idea and basically always incorrect anyway Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ways tagged as boundary=* should not share any node with areas tagged as landuse.
  • crop=* should be kept completely distinct from landuse. (This rule eliminates single fields of farmland tagged with landuse.)
why? TomChance (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe there are some insane mono-cultures like rice (see taginfo at the crop proposal), but my experience is that landuse areas are way bigger than the crop-areas and the crops are rapidly changing. So there is no reason to tell mappers that they should merge these ideas. This will only end up with millions of tiny areas of landuse=farmland. --Cracklinrain (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Mapping individual fields is already widespread, but if crops are rotated I can see that it would be pointless to add the tag. TomChance (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Landuse=field is rendered differently to Landuse=farmland on the main map, would it be reasonable to use the former for grass/pasture fields that are not meadows, and keep the latter for arable farmland? Drnoble (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • highway=residential implies that the landuse of its underlying area is landuse=residential. Update: Or any other residential-like-tags like retail, commercial, (industrial) etc
what does this mean? How would this change the way you map an area with some residential roads?
Right. This is not very helpful. It should state a principle (As it is elsewhere used at OSM). highway=residential is by definition a street in a residential context. Hence the landuse in this area is for example residential (which holds also for the area of the street). Streets outside of those areas - on the countryside - are tagged highway=unclassified. --Cracklinrain (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but what you you mean by "implies"? Do you mean that you think we shouldn't bothered to map the landuse where we already say the streets are residential? Or something else? TomChance (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. As you said. The area of the street is also of landuse=residential, if the street on the same area is highway=residential. This should be used equivalent. If shops are along the street you gonna use landuse=retail for the street, too - but the street will be residential, probably. The highway=residential/unclassified/track-tag has similar blurry definitions: It is defined by usage.
  • highway=track on landuse=farmland is the default scheme for tracks with a grass surface, since nobody is interested in micro-mapping, and should be tagged on the highway with surface=grass.
  • leisure=nature_reserve and trees do not imply natural=wood. (In Germany landuse=forest would be the right choice for 99% of all forest-polygons, but some users tend to map natural=wood. It might take 30 years in some cases, but for example at Germany it is really hard to find an untouched wood.)
I think that universities and schools, like gardens and parks, are assumed to imply a landuse TomChance (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I have read somewhere that schools should get landuse=residential, but cannot find it. And actually this is also my intention for other land used for education - where universities fit much more to landuse=commercial because of their bureau character. But amenity itself should not be a key which describes landuse, because this is absolutely odd. Of course, you can deduce from the usage of an amenity=school areas, that it has kind of a different usage. But it does not really change the landuse. What about all the other amenity-tags like amenity=parking/hospital/place_of_worship/recycling etc? All of them induce a kind of "special usage" of the land, but you cannot call them landuse. And if so - how do you solve to give streets a landuse? It completely feels wrong to give the street in front of the school landuse=residential and the school not.--Cracklinrain (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I've never come across the idea that schools should get that landuse tag added to the same object. Most landuse areas are just used to denote, very broadly, the main land use in an area, a way of indicating zones of residential, retail, commercial, industrial, agricultural and other uses. It's fine to have a school within a larger residential landuse area, or a place of worship in an area that is predominantly commercial (such as the many churches in the City of London). OpenStreetMap is never going to be a good place for a highly accurate source of land cover data. TomChance (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Bigger areas tagged with power=* should officially tagges with landuse=industrial
  • landuse=retail should not be applicated to the major-rule. Very often buildings are used for both residential and retail purposes. The landuse covering of those areas should be retail since there are shops existing - not since the major part of a building is used for retail purposes.

Problems which cause inconsistency within leisure, landuse and natural:

do you mean landuse=military at the start of this sentence? I don't understand your point. TomChance (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Right. Since you want to map a forest used by the military for training you are not able to do so, because otherwise you are using landuse/nature twice.--Cracklinrain (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In this instance, you could either follow the most common OSM convention that "forest" means timber production and so tag it instead as natural=wood, or you could just create two objects sharing nodes each with the relevant landuse tag. Not ideal, but OpenStreetMap tagging is often not ideal! TomChance (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, what is the problem here? TomChance (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not only focussing here on the deprecation of landuse=grass, but also on the contradiction that leisure should not interepreted as having a landuse-function. Otherwise landuse only means landcover in many contexts. (leisure=nature_reserve + landuse=forest, leisure=pitch + landuse=recreation_ground, leisure=common + landuse=*) --Cracklinrain (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to step back a bit and accept how OpenStreetMap tags developed. We started with quite a small set of tags that seemed appropriate to create a basic street map of the UK. This has grown over the years to accommodate other types of map, other geodata interests, other countries and other cultures. There are now lots of values for amenity= that would probably be better in leisure=, and lots of values for landuse= that would probably be better in surface=. There are differences we have never satisfactorily resolved, like wood/forest. There are widely varying approaches to eve very basic tags like landuse=residential, as you say. The world we live in is complicated, and representing that is made harder by cultural differences around the world, and the different reasons people contribute to the project. The completely free tagging process, and the absence of any formal process for coming to decisions that can be enforced, means we will always have a certain amount of mess and confusion around the edges. The tagging system isn't ever going to be a complete, logical description of the world. We just have to make a decent approximation with the tags we have. Constantly changing and deprecating tags to try and make it more logical only makes the project more complicated for contributors and data users. TomChance (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a completely stupid tag, I would never use it! TomChance (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This is why I am wondering about the gaps at streets. Some mappers intentionally draw the landuse=residential only on some private property and leave out the streets. But this means in fact that they are mapping indirectly "landuse=street" without using it.--Cracklinrain (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Problems. I think the bulk of what you describe as problems are not significant. I am not sure, but I think I'm the only person who has tried to compare OSM landuse with other sources (slides of talk here (PDF)). Broadly speaking it was pretty easy to produce convincing landuse/landcover maps which were comparable with equivalent professionally produced maps. This would suggest that the basic landuse categories are not seriously broken. (The widespread use of {tag|landuse|grass} for both agricultural and amenity grassland was not an issue at the time). My methodology for handling highway/landuse/natural/amenity tags worked pretty well. By FAR AND AWAY the most difficult problem was handling OSM polygons, the tagging was utterly trivial in comparison. For additional information on this comparison see these blog posts : Simulating Urban Atlas, Exploration of Bad Polygons and Augmenting Residential Landuse. I also support everything TomChance says. There is much we can and need to do with landuse, mainly to find ways in which landuse classes can be sub-typed in ways which support particular use-cases without imposing a huge overhead on mappers not interested in them. SK53 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss all of these Suggestions and Problems. Some are important for every mapping on OpenStreetMap and can be applicated to natural=*, building=* (with exceptions for tunnel=building_passage and entrance=*), landcover=* etc. --Cracklinrain (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Landuse vs Vegetation vs Landcover cleanup (Category:Features)

This is highly disputable topic, but inconsistency at wiki doesn't help anyone either. Misleading content doesn't help end users right now.

Right now we have inconsistent content at Landuse, Vegetation and Landcover: simply look at landuse=meadow. Meadow is even worse than landuse=wood/natural=forest, it is listed everywhere [1], [2] [3]. Maybe we we should use broader group that will contain all disputable features (aka *=wood)? Xxzme (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There should really be no dispute, but I see there are several pages with wrong introductory texts. You can have all those keys on any single area: landuse=* describes "to what purpose people use this area", and at the same time natural=* describes what natural "class" dominates in that area; then some claim that natural features should be split in two, into natural=* and landcover=*. Obviously, users often consider that the "natural" in some area is implicit with some of the landuse values.
It's never "either/or", it's "this landuse and that natural". (Meadow is a difficult example, because the word meadow is used in natural language for both "the use" and for that sort of seminatural grassland description.) Alv (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the set of wiki pages Landuse, Vegetation, Landcover are quite confusing. They are philosophically discussing the meaning of the words as distinct from how we ended up using the words within tag keys, and distinct from the "Key:" pages. Would it be better to move and merge it all onto one page with a title which is less easily confused with a "key:" page? This is actually what I created the "Land use and areas of natural land" wiki page for. That was supposed to be an all-encompassing discussion of how to deal with all these things. Maybe it needs a better name -- Harry Wood (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you use simply "Environment" then you don't have to use "and areas of natural land" in title. See also Environment, Built environment and Natural environment. I will be happy if pages at osm wiki will be point to Environment instead of confusing Landuse, Vegetation, Landcover. It is okay if Environment will be somewhat big and will point to Key:landuse, Key:natural, ... instead of duplicating definitions. Xxzme (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Done in English namespace.

Landuse, Vegetation and Landcover now refer to sections in Environment. Xxzme (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That was too quick. I was suggesting and discussing an idea to re-organise some pages, pages which people have spent some time structuring and working on. You have waded in, with a new page title "Environment" (which I don't like that much) and then leaving just 8 hours for people to reply or discuss with you, you have implemented the page moves and merges. -- Harry Wood (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not 8 hours. "merge" banners were since 2014-12. Merge was announced at 3 [4] [5] [6] forums and tagging list (can't find link to announcement ATM). Anyone who had interest in these pages may inspect history of the page to browse previous lists.
Previous work is still present at wiki, previous pages are not removed. if we find better place for philosophical views - then it is fine.
Again, you can inspect latest version of Landuse and copy parts of previous tables under Environment#Landuse.
IMO previous table redundant and duplicates Key:landuse and translated many times definitions from Template:Map_Features:landuse.
Other feature pages doesn't copy definition of every single tag/relation/key relevant to title: Buildings, Addresses, Public transport. Xxzme (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the previous pages now - see also Talk:Environment#Unsuccessful_merge_of_Landuse.2C_Landcover_and_Vegetation. There is of course a lot of room for improvement on all three pages but this is surely better approached with some gradual improvements and possibly the development of a new page relating those - Environment in its current state does not really seem that helpful in this regard. --Imagico (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussions elsewhere

Referring to discussions elsewhere is not a replacement for improving the wiki. Nonetheless, it can be quite useful considering the leeway editors have in regard to mapping. --Ceyockey (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Humanuse rather than landuse?

landuse=aquaculture is presently being used on water features ... yes landuse at sea. I have also been told to use it for underground mines with an appropriate layer tag. So rather than being just for land and surface it also applied to other things. A much better way of thinking of this key is 'humanuse'; the use an area is put to by humans. Warin61 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

renaming landuse key is extremely unlikely Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple landuse and leisure keys attached to the same area

I've been seeing a lot of areas lately tagged with multiple landuse or leisure key. Which causes the next landuse or leisure ley in the series to have an underscore with a number attached to it. At this point there are currently about two thousand of each just for _1. There could potentially be a lot more for _2 and subsequent numbers. A lot of them are associated with Pokémon Go mapping, but some seem to have been added by otherwise normal mappers. I assume that tagging an area with same key multiple times is incorrect and that there is no software out there that displays anything with a _number extension. Id like to know if there is a purpose for it though that I might not be aware of before I start deleting the keys in mass. Also, if it is wrong to stack landuse and leisure keys like that a note about not doing it should be added to the keys articles. Since it seems to be such a huge problem.

I've found a few in 'my' area. Remove all but 1. That has retail - bottom level of apartment block and landuse_1 =residential for the upper levels. That is entirely understandable from a mappers point of view. I have chosen, in that situation, to map the majority use - residential. But I have left this one alone. What do you think? Warin61 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Generally I think we should map the "highest use" (most valuable for a general map user) of the land, so if the ground level is retail then map the area as landuse=retail, since map users are mainly interested in finding shops and services, not residential areas, and this is also what is visible on the ground level. Hence any downtown or centre city area with retail on the first floor, and offices above, gets landuse=retail, by this standard. I believe I saw this recommended by a few other mappers on other pages in this wiki, or on the Help forum.
It's also possible to map two separate areas, one with landuse=retail and one with landuse=residential. If there are other adjacent retail or residential properties, it would be normal to extend the area to overlap with this apartment/retail building too. Generally most renderers will show the smallest areas "on top", but the database will still show that the area is both retail and residential. You can even put two areas on top of one another by using a multipolygon or just two closed ways sharing the same nodes, if your apartment/retail building is surrounded completely by another landuse / landcover area. --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to know if there are other places where this has been discussed. It's clearly possible for a single piece of land to have multiple uses (e.g. ground floor retail, upper floors residential). I think it's problematic to say map users are mainly interested in finding shops and services, knowing where residential areas are in relation to those shops and services (even if right on top of them) is just as important. Mapping with overlapping polygons especially when 'hidden' inside a multipolygon doesn't seem to me to resolve the problem - it creates additional geometry that has to be maintained and would seem to me to make measuring areas of land dedicated to particular uses really problematic. It seems to me that tagging a single piece of land with multiple uses must be legitimate. Any other references that can be brought to this would be good.NickJOB (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Every key in the database can only have one value. So if there is a city block which is both residential, commercial and retail and you want to map all of these values, you need to create separate database objects for each feature, for example by creating a closed way with landuse=retail and then creating 2 multipolygons which use the same way as the outer - if all of the landuse area are the exact same size. While JOSM will allow adding a tag like landuse=retail;commercial;residential" such values are not going to be interpreted properly by the majority of database users, so I would not recommend this. See Semi-colon_value_separator where use of semi-colons is not recommended for top-level "feature" tags like landuse=*.
Re: "would seem to me to make measuring areas of land dedicated to particular uses really problematic" - If you are going to do this with OSM data, you'll first have to de-duplicate areas that are overlapping. It's very common to map a whole village or town as one big landuse=residential area, and then map retail areas or schools within this, without make a multipolygon. The issue of handling multi-use areas is minor compared to that. --Jeisenbe (talk)
Okay, thanks for the pointer to Semi-colon_value_separator - I agree this is not the answer. The page on Multiple_values is helpful - it also mentions the possibility of using relations. I think it's an interesting approach but it still looks like a work-around for a technical limitation in the database or current tagging scheme. I accept that this may just be what we have to work with but, at the moment, mappers are faced with an artificial value judgement. I think we all intuitively know that a single piece of land can be used for both residential and retail, retail and commercial etc. It would just be nice to have an easy way of tagging this without resorting to relations, overlapping polygons etc.
On the second point about large residential areas, I agree it's very common but I don't think this is problematic. landuse=residential says that this approach is generally considered preliminary. As mappers, adding and refining the data in OSM is what we do. Splitting large land use areas down to at least the scale of a city block largely removes the need for land use multi-polygons. By omitting land dedicated to public highway (for which there is no land use tag) the other land uses can generally be mapped as islands/groups of simple polygons separated by the transport network. NickJOB (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

construction vs. under_construction

This ist false and a big problem:

"Construction Developed landuse=construction - area currently under construction"

This means under_construction and not a construction. The problem is, a value for constructions is missing and assigned. A construction is not really a building lika a house or factory, but a building with multiple cohered man_made buildings in a area. The area is the key landuse. The overall building is the value construction. The individual buildings have the key man_made. How should this problem be fixed? --Lorissa (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"The individual buildings have the key man_made" - are you sure? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Resolved: no reply Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Purpose vs. Category

The values of the key landuse don't merge values. There are more values with the category agriculture. Agriculture is not only a category, but it is a top value for landuse. landuse=agriculture. And than subkeys wit values: agriculture=farm_land, agriculture=forestry, agriculture=plantation, agriculture=grazing, ... and landuse=greenhouse_horticulture is also false. Greenhouses are not a value of landuse. Greenhouses are a construction with man_made buldings. landuse=construction, construction=greenhouse_horticulture, man_made=greenhouse. The landuse thing is quite confusing and not clearly and unambiguously structured. Please fix that. --Lorissa (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"not clearly and unambiguously structured" - sadly, this is typical in OSM tagging due to way it was created and how it continues to evolve. In general it works but unambiguous and clear structure is missing Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Adjoining/Adjacent Landuse

What is the most common practice of mapping two different landuse areas right next to each other in terms of sharing nodes? And should landuse a only share nodes with other landuse or can it share nodes with something say like buildings or (if already mapped) landuse=highway? Any input? I think would be great to link use on how to map for the main page as well. IanVG (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are two areas that share border then sharing nodes and way is 100% fine and often a good idea (note that gluing landuse to roads is almost always incorrect and unwanted). I would not expect landuse to share nodes with building, except rare cases where its border and border of building is exactly the same Mateusz Konieczny (talk)
Gotcha, thank you for the speedy response! I've noticed both practices (sharing nodes and not sharing nodes) and I wanted to see if the latter was just a fluke and if the former is in fact, a common and encouraged practice of mapping the areas. I guess one quick and dirty example I could give you of a landuse that is usually directly adjacent to a building is leisure=garden (not strictly a landuse= key value I know). On my unversity campus the landscaping (which I've been advised to continue mapping as leisure=garden) nearly always abuts the building directly. I had the feeling though that this practice might cause more difficulty for interpreting the data than the benefit it provides.--IanVG (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If garden reaches building, with no separation - then sharing nodes/ways should be OK Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

areas partly overlapping

"areas partly overlapping other areas should be avoided" - why? "Do not stretch one playground over two residential areas" - why? What about playground shared by two named residential areas, partly in one, partly in second?

What is wrong with forest (lets say that it is actively logged forest to avoid landuse vs landcover discussion) partially overlapping military area?

See - what is supposed to be wrong here?

@Hb:, author of that (added in ). See also mailing list discussion on tagging - Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: Seems fixed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How to tag government buildings

How should we tag government building areas (parliament, city hall etc.)? Found them tagged as landuse=commercial which seems like a poor fit to me. Rostaman (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Several options:
--- Kovposch (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)