[Tagging] Recreation_ground (landuse vs leisure)

[Greg Troxel]

"Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com> writes:

> A user has performed globally edit:
>
> "comment = remove leisure=recreation_ground where the more common
> landuse=recreation_ground exists"

Automated edits without adequate discussion that are at all
controversial should be immediately reverted, and then discussed.  This
is clearly somewhere between controversial and wrong.

> The removal of duplicated tags is, of course, correct, however I was
> surprised to see that landuse is being used (& is more popular)
> instead of leisure:

The tagging between landuser, landcover-type tags, and leisure is a bit
of a mess.  Arguably it needs some global cleaning up.  But we're
nowhere near consensus on bot eits.

> Prescribed tags in editors:
>
> Potlatch2 - leisure
> JOSM - landuse
> Id - couldn't see one.
>
> My opinion is a recreation_ground can contain other land uses like
> forest, grass, meadow etc. so leisure should be used. I'm guessing
> this question will bring up discussion of the landcover tag
> again. What was the conclusion of that from last time?

The conclusion  seems to be that landcover as a concept is arguably
separate from landuse.  But landuse=recreation_ground and
leisure=recreation_ground don't have anything to do with landcover.

I have been tagging 

  landuse=conseration
  leisure=recreation_ground

for parcels that are legally protected from development, when the
primary purpose is to preserve them, but it's permissable/encourage for
people to walk on them.   For parcels which are not really for humans, I
prefer

  landuse=conseration
  leisure=nature_reserve

I admit this is a bit hackish.  But it's not so wrong that an
undiscussed bot edit is reasonable.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130526/8052b190/attachment.pgp>