[Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative

[Andrew Chadwick (lists)]

On 23/05/11 13:17, Craig Wallace wrote:
> Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as
> residential=garden, without the landuse tag.
> Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then
> map individual gardens and houses etc within that.
> 
> No need to use two tags when one will say just as much.

Agreed about how this would likely be used (because that's how it
currently is being used, around here). For backwards compatibility
though, I think you need to say both on the same object, and it does no
harm to reiterate the landuse tag.



Complete aside - please excuse the bad ASCII art - but in the general
case of two overlapping areas does

              +---------------------+
              |             foo=bar |
  +-----------+-----------+         |
  |           |     X     |         |
  |           +-----------+---------+
  | quux=xyz              |
  +-----------------------+

really carry the meaning foo=bar|quux=xyz for the union area marked X?
It seems to be implied in what you're saying, and perhaps it's logically
the case, but we shouldn't necessarily map like that to avoid ambiguity.
What would happen if the Southernmost area also defined some foo=*
property other than "foo=bar"? Are both foo=* values now applicable to
X, or must a data consumer resolve in favour of one or the other? Better
to represent X as its own non-overlapping object, so that data consumers
only have to consider one object.

Apologies for the slight aside there. It's not really an ambiguity in
the case of a landuse=Y inside a landuse=Y :)

-- 
Andrew Chadwick