Talk:Proposed features/Misc. urban open space

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
  • This would get my vote. A housing estate I'm currently working on has lots of these scattered around, often in a fairly scrappy state, but worthy of mapping. They're not really gardens, but sometimes the council or the residents do the quieter ones up with a few bulbs or potted plants here and there. More typically, they're essentially a grass verge writ large (10-30m across a short edge) with kids kicking a ball around (and "no ball games" signs put up by the council, so they're not recreation grounds either). IMX, they're often surrounded and run through with little footpaths (paved round here, seemingly on a pave-the-footprints-in-the-snow basis), so it would be good if the proposal mentioned that and game some sort of idea about whether to add the footways in too. My vote: yes, if the footways act as a link between some more major highways (pick the shortest/neatest route if there are multiple options, maybe). --achadwick 23:30, 9 April 2008 (BST)
  • Would some pictures be of use? I have several. --achadwick 23:31, 9 April 2008 (BST)
  • I like this, I think we need something that we can use instead of village_green. For example in germany we often have a small area with grass or bushes between opposite lanes of a road. Because of the fact there is not always only grass on these areas I would prefer to name this tag landuse=green. I think we then have more possibilities to use this tag and don't need another one for mixed usage with grass and bushes. --Patzi 11:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree to Patzi and would prefer the more generic landuse=green --HeikoE 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is useful. But i would also prefer this as landuse=green because landuse=grass seems a bit limited to grass only Areas. --Mario Link 10:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • landuse=green sounds very close in character to landuse=village_green. And TBH the the two can be quite similar: open areas for everyone to use which aren't parks or rec. areas. But they all have grass round here: what green covering exists elsewhere? Astroturf? --achadwick 11:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Urban areas are full of open grassland spaces managed as amenity grass, meadow, savannah, or wood pasture. These areas are clearly not parks. But I do not agree with the tag Landuse=grass. Firstly (as summary states) this tag would be for all Urban Open Spaces, not just grass. Some features such as scrub are natural and already have a tag. Secondly, the real problem is the lack of a tag for grassland. Woodland can be natural (natural=wood) or managed (landuse=forest) but grass is ignored. Natural grassland should come under a Natural tag called Natural=grass (with sub divisions available). Heavily managed grassland is called Amenity Grass. We should have available Natural=grass and Landuse= Amenity_Grass. Other Urban open areas such as scrub should be taged using the available tag Natural=Scrub. Shrubbery and Flower Bedding should be together in a separate tag. --Jamicu 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I dont agree with Landuse=green suggestion, many countries in arid areas (eg Middle East) have Urban Open Spaces that have no greenery. A simple cover all tag of Landuse=Natural_Open_Space would make editing easier, but I'd prefer to be able to to supply information on how the area is actually made up (amenity grass, shrubbery&flowerbeds, scrub etc)--Jamicu 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't about natural open space by my reading - it's about man-made open space, mostly in larger planned environments like cities. landuse=grass doesn't prevent you from making landuse=bare_earth, landuse=clearing etc. See below though; perhaps a new tag is necessary to accomodate everybody. --achadwick 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this proposal. Just think about landuse=grass on its own, without the history of this proposal. It sounds wrong. Next would be landuse=wood maybe? I hope you get my point. Why not just use village_green? It fits so well if you ask me. Because it has a special meaning in one country? I think we shouldn't have too many tags that all end up being treated the same anyway. Or is there any application imaginable where you want to treat grass areas in a village differently? If you want to stress that an area is public or not, I think nothing speaks against setting access=yes/no. --Mabapla 08:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Because village greens have a rather specific legal meaning, and because the terminology would be quite wrong in a city :) See below though; perhaps a new tag is necessary to accomodate everybody. --achadwick 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If people really don't agree on landuse=grass, what about a combination of tags: landuse=open_space combined with surface=grass (or rock, or paved, or dirt...), for example. Any seconds? +1 here if you agree. --achadwick 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's continue the discussion for a bit and then reboot this proposal or close it down. --achadwick 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I disagree totally with this tag:

1) Does everything really have to be tagged? Isn't it possible to have small specks of untagged areas on the map without people to think it is unmapped/unsurveyed?
2) Why is landuse=village_green unsuited? It is defined as an open area for common use.
3) Why is landuse=recreation_ground unsuited? it is defined as an open green space for general recreation, which may include pitches, nets and so on, usually municipal but possibly also private to colleges or companies
4) landuse=* is supposed to be for areas where a type of service or similar is maintained or scheduled.
5) Why cannot any of the natural=* be used? Examples: natural=scrub natural=heath

Feel free to comment. --Skippern 18:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)