- The wiki documents a the common understanding by mappers how to use a particular tag. This tag is used about 7000 times, so it needs documentation. Significant use by many mappers is one way to establish a tag; a proposal/voting process is another. --Polarbear w (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The sense of this tag
"(describing the human use..." So this is about the usage. Right? But this tags says nothing about the usage! In this way it has the same meaning like natural=grass.
If it's about the usage of an area there should be a usage tag, isn't it? Some ideas...
- public (in a park)
- garden_design (as a piece of a designt garden)
- Sorry you misread the description. Landuse is about the use, natural is about unused natural geographical features. Landcover is about the presence of grass, independent if it is used or not, and independent of what the landuse of the area is, e.g. a patch of grass on a landuse=retail. Have a look at the proposal page which explains that in more detail. I'll also clarify the description. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Since Warin61 insists on hiding the existence of the established tags for grass mapping with 2m+ uses from the readers of this page here for future reference the description i drafted that might actually be helpful to mappers instead of the current unhelpful living in the bubble of key semantics religion text:
- Other primary tags used to describe areas with grass growing on them with partly more specific meaning are natural=grassland, landuse=meadow and landuse=grass.
- As an add-on (subsidiary property) tag for other features e.g. a road indicating a grass surface you can use surface=grass.
- Somewhat similar but different types of vegetation are described with natural=heath and natural=scrub.
- The tag landuse=grass is a poor choice for any grassed area and its use should not be encouraged. Exactly what is the land USED for? Grass is not a land USE, but it is a land COVER. Thus the landcover=grass should not suggest the use of a tag that does confuse people and is misinterpreted. Warin61 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Warin61's intentions, and I agree with Imagico that documentation needs improvement. My idea is to draw examples, where in the first case there is e.g. landuse=residential, which is "covered" with some building=house and some landcover=grass. The counterexample is the landuse=meadow which is covered with cows grazing, and maybe still landuse=grass, where having a large lawn is the prime purpose and use. --Polarbear w (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Land is never 'used' by grass. The grass in the centre of the road is there to provide road safety, the same as if it were covered by concrete, so the land use here is highway even if vehicle are not meant to drive on it. A building does not get landuse=building, it gets things like landuse=residential, commercial etc. Grass should get the same treatment, if it is on the premises of a home then it is landuse=residential. Land use grass is a major error in concepts. What next? landuse=purple? Warin61 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)