Talk:Tag:landuse=recreation ground

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Like village green, which I think is a good idea, neither park nor pitch really describes a recreation ground. Also like village green, it's perhaps a rather British (English even) concept though.

-- User:David.earl October 20, 2006

I have come across what can be best described as a recreation ground, in many parks of the world, although many of the countrys were once part of the British Empire which might explain it -- Batchoy 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--David.earl 12.40, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Batchoy 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Geoff 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Bahnpirat 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Uboot 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Calibrator 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not being a Brit, I'm not sure what the definition of a Recreation Ground is... How should I tag a private neighborhood sports club (swimming, tennis)? Alan Jackson 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I always thought this was for a recreation area, a domain with facilities to do several sports like cycling or skating or just for sunbathing, sometimes with a lake suitable for water sports, and including bars or a restaurant. But now I actually read this page that seems something completely different than what landuse=recreation_ground is... --Eimai 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


This is obviously related to parks, but parks are leisure=park. Why is this under landuse and not leisure? Indigomc 17:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd second this comment, as I'd been merrily using Tag:leisure=park in other areas, yet in others landuse=recreation_ground is used. At least in the UK, people would always refer about "going down the park to kick a ball about", and most are named as parks (for example, Gadebridge Park in Hemel Hempstead, where I was surveying last weekend) -- ratarsed 12:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

By the name I'd expect something connected to sports, and then the description says it is like village_green. -- Dieterdreist 22:04, 13 September 2010 (BST)

I agree that this tag is confusing and probably unnecessary. It's an old one from way back in 2006. A "recreation ground" conjures images of flat grass space for doing sports and recreation, but the difference between that and a park, is not really all that interesting. Mappers would be making more useful data if they just go with the much more widely used leisure=park tag. To convey the "recreation" aspect, I would draw areas within the park with leisure=pitch and specific Key:sport tags.
The page should have a section "similar tags" which should include leisure=park and explain how a mapper might make a distinction. But maybe I would just say that this is a funny old tag, and leisure=park is much more widely used.
-- Harry Wood 00:34, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I wholeheartedly agree with Harry's comments. As relatively newer mapper, this tag seems a bit redundant and leisure=park is more useful. In the USA at least, recreation ground as a term is used rarely. However, 'Park' in the USA generally means that it can be used for recreational activities (picnics, sports, hiking,) unless otherwise specified on a physical sign at the park. :-- Skorasaurus 15:29, 21 July 2011 (BST)

I'm really missing here the difference between this and leisure=park. According to [W] wikipedia a "recreation ground is a type of park". Again: what is the difference? --Imagic 09:30, 6 June 2012 (BST)

I often use this tag for the grassy areas containing sports fields at a school (example). This is quite different from a park, which is normally an open public area for general recreation, although a park may also contain a recreation ground. --Umbugbene (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Good example, Umbugbene! I have a similar area of grass without any markers, ready to divide in kind of fashions depending on the sport that is about to be played, often used for tournaments/cups for youth that often have smaller pitches. My thought was to only tag the grass and leave more permanent structures, like runners track, out of the recreation_ground. Could leisure=sports_centre be used for the whole area. Sports_centre includes both recreation_ground and pitches, tracks, buildings?/Johan Jönsson (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

To me a 'park' is for relaxation. A 'recreation ground' is for play. Warin61 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Secondary (Sub) tags - associated

Showgrounds A 'showground' can be tagged landuse=recreation_ground with recreation_ground=showground While these areas are used from time to time for 'shows' (usually agricultural)they are also used for sports. Warin61 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


@Prince_Kassad, you have added the verifiability template which refers to the discussion on the talk page, but you have not started such discussion. You claim in the change comment the tag would have the definition "I want this area to appear green on the slippy map!" while in fact it has the definition "An open green space for general recreation, which often includes formal or informal pitches, nets and so on. Often municipally owned, but sometimes also part of colleges / companies, or commercially operated.". Could you elaborate your issue. --Polarbear w (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see the above dicussion. This tag is indistinguishable from leisure=park. The definition you cited is the definition of a park and there's nothing that distinguishes a recreation ground from a park. Many parks in practice feature places where games (.e g. soccer) can be played. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a certain overlap, yes. But not all parks are recreation grounds, and not all recreation grounds are parks. Your perspective, and the opinions above, are driven from having from a particular park in mind where there is such overlap. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Then what is the difference? The wiki page doesn't mention, and it is not obvious because Wikipedia doesn't distinguish the two either. And in practice, this tag is only used as "I want this to appear green on the slippy map", as I said. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
There's even bigger overlap with park and garden, but there are many gardens which are not parks. Also park is mostly covered with trees, while grassy area with different pitches, picnic areas, pubs etc. are certainly not a park. They are more similar to stadium, but if there's no stadium building inside, the "recreation ground" is the best match. Kocio (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
What you describe is leisure=sports_centre which describes any place with different pitches for different sports, though the wiki definition for that tag is probably a bit confusing and seems to focus too much on indoor places. leisure=garden is a whole different issue altogether but that is not the topic. I don't think the definition for leisure=park should have "must have trees" because that can obviously only apply to temperate climates, by that definition steppe/desert countries could never have a park just because trees don't grow there. That seems silly. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
There are other examples for recreation_ground in the opinions above that are not parks: one user mentioned recreation grounds around schools, another showgrounds. The combination tourism=hostel + landuse=recreation_ground is recommended for accommodation-oriented, hostel-style bungalow-villages. Please stop general accusations of mappers to use that for painting green on the map. Even if you found such an example, that is not the general situation.--Polarbear w (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The example linked above is wrongly tagged and should be leisure=sports_centre. I mentioned that in my post above and will not repeat myself again. Combining tourism=hostel + landuse=recreation_ground seems completely wrong to me and way against the definition of this tag: private grounds of hostels are not areas for recreation! -- Prince Kassad (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You are misquoting the park definition, there is no such phrase as "must have trees". It says: "...usually ... with grassy areas, trees and bushes." Please do not support your arguments with false citations, that is the poor side of rhetorics.--Polarbear w (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Shut the fuck up you dumb idiot, I was obviously replying to another user who suggested this exact definition. Falsely accusing me of such things is nothing short of libel. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal insults are now the absolute lowest category on rhetorics, typically used when there are no more factual arguments. Apparently you refer to a user in your Forum discussion, who said that "In einen Park gehören nach meinem Verständnis Bäume", which again is not an agreed "exact definition" of "must have". Even in this Forum discussion, a sufficient number of users expressed their opinion that they prefer to keep the recreation_ground tag. Interestingly, you did not point to the forum discussion when you made your edits here and on DE:Tag:sport=climbing adventure.--Polarbear w (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You still don't know what I'm talking about? Seriously? I have no words for this other than *facepalm*. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Prince_Kassad, your behavior has been reported. You have to talk with other people to find the common ground, not insult them. I also know places where leisure=sports_centre wouldn't work, but I will not go into details until you stop personal attacks and get back to the merits, if you're able to do it. -- Kocio (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry? User:Polarbear_w is lying on purpose, accusing me of false things just to insult and make a joke of me, and you expect me to stay serious? -- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever you think or feel while discussing, it's just your interpretation. You don't have to like anybody nor agree with him, but insults are completely out of question, no matter what other people say. It's better if you just stick to the subject, not the people and what you think about them, because this doesn't help anything. -- Kocio (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have all the reason to be wary of users after certain other communites where disputes went so far that people attempted w:swatting on me. I have no reason to believe User:Polarbear w won't attempt the same on me. And for what it's worth I refuse to have a discussion with him until he gets back to the truth and stops making constant jokes of me. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You have the right to think whatever you think about him, because it's your interpretation. You can also not talk with him, so this problem just won't be resolved - it's your choice. But if you decide to write anything, insulting is always prohibited (unconditional "NO") and focusing only on the subject, not the people, is highly recommended. -- Kocio (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)