[Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
law_ence.dev at ntlworld.com
Tue Mar 14 11:40:14 UTC 2017
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:27:40AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote:
> > > 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.
> 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?
Not sure. I think that I discovered something like that but then the
quarries were not rendered. Of course, I don't want to tag for the
renderer, but in this area these features are highly significant, and it
would be misleading - and dangerous if the map is used for navigation -
if they are not shown.
I have just refreshed my memory on what I did, and I see that in one
case I used disused=quarry with landuse=quarry which is being rendered.
That seems to be in the spirit of wiki/Key:disused:, at least.
But you could still object to the apparent contradiction.
More information about the Tagging