<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/03/2021 13:35, Florian Lohoff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20210327103536.ljucvjjtuhxo2b3v@pax.zz.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:52:26PM +0300, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In my opinion landuse=cemetery should only be used for the actual land where
human remains are burried, preserved above ground or human remains as ashes
are kept in urns or spread. Cemeteries are not attached to a place of
worship, for those we have grave-yard. It is in my opinion a vary valid
landuse tag, not an amenity, as in many countries, cemeteries are individual
or multiple graves on private land. Often and most culturally not accepted
to construct a road, a parking or other landuse without relocation or
acceptance by the descendants and/or local community.
The definition says it should not include parking areas, but does include
inner green spaces.
The diversity however of what kind of other land uses can be found on
cemeteries is very diverse world wide. It might even contain larger
buildings (not churches etc...) like cafeterias, playgrounds, caretaker
premises, roads, ... .
So I would propose to use the cemetery tag only for those places actually
used or destined to be used (like the inner green spaces, which might be
further detailed with natural=* or landcover=* polygons and tags), other
facilities and infrastructure to be mapped and tagged with their most
appropriate landuse=*, amenity=* and highway=*.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
But why do you treat landuse=cemetery different than landuse=retail?
Landuses (We had this discussion on this very list in the thread about
micromapping with landuse e.g. landuse=hedge) are large swaths of land
classification. So all objects belonging to this cemetery should
be within this landuse.</pre>
</blockquote>
Well, actually we don't. The discussion always arrises when certain
areas become more detailed, mappers are starting to do micromapping.
<br>
Landuse, all of the landuse areas, can be regarded as large chunks
of land, however, they should not reflect what only exists on paper,
a zoning plan. An urban or rural zoning plan might be enforced, but
in many areas, even in Western countries, it is not that strictly
enforced. So organically, in many places you will always have a mix
of landuses on the ground. Landuse can be used, and in my opinion
should be used on a more detailed level, plot by plot being the
ultimate end point. In this way you actually map the ground truth,
OSM becomes a very powerful database for planners to see how zoning
is applied in the real world. How the actual landuse, the ground
truth in many cases differs from the plans, what you think you see
on large scale imagery.<br>
<p>If we are more open to adopt this philosophy, whitout excluding
large chunks of land, but rather detail the map more and change
the large landuse poygons into boundaries, with relations etc...
OSM will become much more powerful. Boundaries become more clear
to all users as not being necessary to be verifiable on the
ground, they can be verified by other "reliable" sources, like
zoning plans. Like management and land ownership.<br>
If you want to map a cemetery, with or without it's parking
spaces, you will always end up in this kind of discussions. Same
as we did in landuse=forest and many others.<br>
If we accept and start mapping or detailing taking into account
that we have boundaries - to map owenrship and management areas -,
surrounding different landuses, amenities, leisure etc..., which
identify the actual use of the land - on a detailed level -
natural/landcover to describe what is on top of the land,
buildings are a form of landcover - they can appear on any landuse
etc... we wouldn't have these discussions.</p>
<p>The parking problem you try to solve with a landuse tag is not a
issue of how the land is used, it is used as a parking. It's an
ownership or management issue, is it owned or managed by the
cemetery, OK then it belongs within it's boundaries. Let's not get
ridiculous about this, in my minds it's actually very simple.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20210327103536.ljucvjjtuhxo2b3v@pax.zz.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
And what about cultures where people are buried only in tombs, sometimes
large and multi storeys - Are these to be excluded because these are
buildings?</pre>
</blockquote>
Of course they are buildings, and what is wrong that they are on
landuse=cemetery ? There is nothing wrong with that, actually it
clarifies that that particular building was intended to preserve
human remains, being it underground, above ground, as ashes or
whatever cultural and religious differences we have across the
world. The opposite approach is what creates the discussion here,
should I consider a large chunk of land as a cemetery because there
is one or a few tombs or graves located on it ? No, and if it should
be, OK, mark the small chunks of land as landuse=cemetery and
surround it with a boundary. Same like graves or small cemeteries
on private land, which is quite common across the world. Should I
not mark those small chunks of kands as cemeteries, with or without
a parking space, when for my part they are in an industrial or
residential or commercial zone ?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20210327103536.ljucvjjtuhxo2b3v@pax.zz.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
So landuse=cemetery has large cultural diversity, this is why i think
these "exclude parking spaces" is wrong as it only fits some few
places in this world.</pre>
</blockquote>
True, and you can solve that easily with what I am trying to
explain. Which would work fine everywhere. If you want more detail
in a map, micromapping, landuse is not a big chunk of land, get that
out of your way of thinking.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20210327103536.ljucvjjtuhxo2b3v@pax.zz.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Flo
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>