[Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

[marc marc]

from aerial imagery and existing tag : landcover=gravel :)

Le 12. 01. 18 à 14:52, Jo a écrit :
> You are right in that we shouldn't base any of our mapping on what is 
> visible on Google Streetview. Which is why I was suggesting that 
> somebody go check it out locally. I've been looking at Belgian aerial 
> imagery we are allowed to use, taken over several years. But nothing 
> useful can be seen on them either. What can be seen is that almost never 
> more than 1 car was parked there when the planes flew over. So it's 
> definitely not a parking lot.
> 
> I don't think we really have a way to tag an empty piece of land with no 
> defined "function" nor vegetation on it,
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> 2018-01-12 14:38 GMT+01:00 José G Moya Y. <josemoya at gmail.com 
> <mailto:josemoya at gmail.com>>:
> 
>     Please notice that, for doing something similar to what you do here
>     (reading a lot of maps and aerial imaginery, being only one of them
>     [3] google maps) I was forced to erase my edition and do it again.
>     Just to warn you.
> 
>     El 12/1/2018 8:30, "Jo" <winfixit at gmail.com
>     <mailto:winfixit at gmail.com>> escribió:
> 
>         It definitely doesn't look like a public parking lot. It would
>         be good if someone local could resurvey if the shop is still in
>         that house.
> 
>         Jo
> 
>         2018-01-12 5:19 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com
>         <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>>:
> 
>             is there street view imagery ? do you have local knowledge ?
> 
>             If not, you might consider not fixing it. Yes it will be a
>             useless
>             polygon in the database, but isn't that better than changing
>             it e.g.
>             to a parking lot while it is a private property ?
> 
>             just my .5 cents
> 
>             m.
> 
>             On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:05 AM, OSMDoudou
>             <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238eee at gmx.com
>             <mailto:19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238eee at gmx.com>> wrote:
>              > Hello,
>              >
>              > Osmose is complaining an area is mapped but not further
>             specified: [1] and
>              > [2]
>              >
>              > Here is how the place looks like: [3]
>              >
>              > I was thinking it's a side walk, but they're not to be
>             mapped as area [4]
>              > and the place doesn't really look like a square or plaza
>             [5] nor like a
>              > parking.
>              >
>              > How would you tag it ?
>              >
>              > Thx.
>              >
>              > [1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15140678368
>             <http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15140678368>
>              > [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223853253
>             <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223853253>
>              > [3] https://goo.gl/maps/yhA3rx2WVhM2
>             <https://goo.gl/maps/yhA3rx2WVhM2>
>              > [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk
>             <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk>
>              > [5]
>             https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian