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

Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+lists at gmail.com
Mon May 23 16:04:59 BST 2011

On 23/05/11 14:13, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Andrew Chadwick wrote:
>>     landuse=residential
>>     residential=garden
> This implies that the landuse=residential tag would be used on
> smale-scale structures, which I believe should not be done. landuses are
> large-scale areas. 

Hmm. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse does not back you up
or mention size limits. It might be interesting to see the distribution
of landuse area sizes by hectare.

All you can say about an area of landuse IMO is that it describes the
predominant usage of land within it, ideally >>50%.

> When you create a landuse polygon for an individual
> building or garden, you are doing something wrong, imo.

Yes, since landuse is not about individual plots. If we go the landuse
route for this, it would make sense to explain that and suggest that
mappers use broad brush-strokes.

Personally I think it would make sense to map broad areas of gardens
plural, but I'm not enough of a detail-head to map each individual
garden (...perhaps there's scope for a plot=* tag for those who are..!)

> A residential garden is not a residential area. It is, however, found
> *within* a residential area. Therefore, it should be mapped as an area
> within another area tagged as landuse=residential, and should not itself
> be tagged as landuse=residential.

I've always considered residential landuse to cover the extent of all
the plots within it when I have aerial imagery, gardens included, but
also to -mean- {housing -or- associated private gardens -or- any access
roads or paths passing into the area}. So in my book it's just a
further-typed kind of residential land use.

By that of course is just MHO and I see where you're coming from when
you say

> Look at buildings for an analogy: We don't tag residential buildings as
> landuse=residential + residential=building, but as building polygons
> *within* a residential area.

Are proposing to recommend garden=residential (on its own), like
building=residential? It's come up before in other discussions, and that
could work too, it's not a bad system. The building case even has its
own special rendering :)

People have suggested garden=* as a tag for typifying the type a garden
is. It works on its own, implies garden-ness (of some undefined
higher-level meaning) and it works in conjunction with any tag with
"garden" as its value. I could be convinced by this, let me know what it
is you're suggesting.

Whether we suggest landuse=* or a garden=* typifier (on its own), I hope
there's agreement here that the vast majority of residential gardens
should *not* be leisure=garden objects.

>> Rendering residential gardens in the same colours
>> as surrounding residential landuse that -isn't- gardens both looks
>> prettier when the renderer doesn't do anything special to support
>> residential gardens
> The same effect can be achieved if residential gardens are not rendered
> at all, and the residential landuse that contains the gardens is
> rendered as usual.

Seems fine to me... I don't want them rendered differently from
residential grey :) Perhaps one day when every swathe of back gardens is
mapped as an area some topical maps may wish to show it. Up to them. For
now, let's just suggest a scheme for mappers to use.

Andrew Chadwick

More information about the Tagging mailing list