[Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Mar 13 23:27:40 UTC 2017

On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
>>> I favor "landuse=disused".
>> English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here.
>> "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
>> Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.
> I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused.
> I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer
> being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major
> features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and
> massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is
> informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use
> for any other purpose: they are quarries.
> Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the
> superficial contradiction that you highlight.
> Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such?  But that is open to the
> same literal objection.

I think disused is correct ...
but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, but it gives some comprehension as to what is going on.


This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land use of residential.


Does that help?

More information about the Tagging mailing list