[Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
John F. Eldredge
john at jfeldredge.com
Mon Mar 13 23:38:25 UTC 2017
Yes, that makes sense to me. Nashville, TN, where I live, has purchased
some houses that were built in flood plains, demolished them, and doesn't
allow anything to be built there now. The tag disused:landuse=residential
seems like the logical one to use for those vacant lots. I suspect the
foundation structures were filled in rather than removed.
On March 13, 2017 6:28:09 PM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging