<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01-Dec-17 11:33 AM, Daniel Koć
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:032493c3-afcc-dd6b-3a64-f81e6dbc5814@xn--ko-wla.pl">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
(It's about landuse=village_green, not leisure=village_green, of
course...)<br>
<br>
W dniu 01.12.2017 o 00:47, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>
pisze:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1af32c1a-9c5b-45cd-37d9-b87f45a6cfa1@gmail.com">This
sounds like a severe case of the tail wagging the dog - the fact
that one particular renderer might not want to render a certain
tag in the future is not a reason for not using it where that
tag is actually the most appropriate. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is the other way around - the tagging seems to be broken, so
we think of dropping it. It's a common pattern to neglect problems
just because they happened to bite us during rendering development
process.<br>
<br>
Let's see:<br>
<br>
1. "A <b>village green</b> is a distinctive part of a village
centre. [...] This tag is very often <b>not</b> used to map the
situation above, but to map all kinds of mixed vegetation"<br>
<br>
- that's 2 different meanings, with the second being full blown
misinterpretation, probably tagging for rendering just because it
sounds similar and it was visible on default map.<br>
<br>
2. "In the UK common land is registered. [...] Use <tt
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6" dir="ltr"
class="mw-content-ltr"><bdi style="white-space:nowrap"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure"
title="Key:leisure" moz-do-not-send="true">leisure</a></bdi>=<a
class="mw-selflink selflink" moz-do-not-send="true"><bdi>common</bdi></a></tt>
to identify land over which the public has general rights of use
for certain leisure activities."<br>
<br>
Sounds like stretching UK legal definition for some reasons.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Were not 'commons' used for more than 'recreation'? I think they
were used for grazing and camping too? <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:032493c3-afcc-dd6b-3a64-f81e6dbc5814@xn--ko-wla.pl">
landuse=recreation_ground or leisure=recreation_ground are not
loaded with local customs and would be good candidates to take
over (they are both currently rendered on default map style, which
would make transition much easier in practice).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>