Talk:Proposed features/residential details
I like the idea of this proposal but...
I like the idea of this proposal, specifically the "character of residential area" bit, but you might need to clarify a few things. It seems to want to be a classification of urban density and character, but the tagging terminology seems to refer to individual plots way too much.
- The "residential=garden" categorisation seems to imply that it's for *an individual* garden rather than [detached housing] (which I think is a more usual term for this sort of residential development in English). Additionally, much "block" housing, i.e. terraced housing in the UK at least has gardens, typically at the back. Can we call this residential=detached instead?
- "residential=grass": this appears to be high-density tower-block housing from the photo, but takes its name from the strips of urban landuse=grass between them. Perhaps residential=tower_blocks or residential=high_density might do? There may be a need to tag social housing too, but I think that's better arranged at the per-building level.
- Not sure about "residential=block" either since it might be covered by the existing tagging for building=*. But if you mean a housing terrace, or better still terraced housing in bulk, perhaps residential=terrace to characterise the area (probably surrounding both sides of the street at least in most places)?
In general I've tried to use adjectives or plurals in my terminology to help reinforce that this stuff doesn't apply to individual plots. Was this your intention for this tag?
- What about trailer parks or mobile home lots?
I don't think the motivation of just wanting landuse=garden to render is sufficient, since it's perfectly possible to avoid rendering such a thing if we can fix the software; your problem is IMO a rendering problem: ticket 3302. However being able to characterise an urban area by its rough make-up, character, or estimates of population density seems like a pretty good idea.
taginfo:residential=* shows no consensus or widespread use yet. Can we wake up this proposal, shovel in some of the tags in use and maybe come up with a schema that's a little more understandable?
--16:43, 26 October 2010 (BST)
I don't like this proposal because, ...
- I agree with Cartinus. The proposed values here also seem arbitrary, especially the "residential=grass" part doesn't make any semantical sense and confuses landcover with landuse. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this prosposal...
...because it makes mapping gardens easier. The four current tags cause too much work. The Problem, that gardens look like grass areas (landuse=grass) should be seperately handled, I suggest to give gardens a bright green colour. --Humanist 11:36, 6 June 2011 (BST)