[Tagging] Allotments plot / lot tagging and ref?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

“One day plots may even be rendered, but I'm not holding my breath.”

I’m working on the SQL query right now... but I thought we should discuss
this here first.

Re: name=* for plots: I didn’t expect an individual plot to have a name.
But if this is possible it should be documented on the wiki page too.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:59 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 23:46, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The current wiki page for landuse=allotments
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dallotments) states
>> that one should "Use allotments=plot and/or boundary=lot for an
>> individual plot and lot=number_of_plot for number of plot."
>>
>
> It has changed since I looked at it several months ago (or my memory of it
> has).  I don't
> remember boundary=lot or lot=number_of_plot.
>
> However, the wiki page for allotments=plot
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:allotments%3Dplot) states
>> "You may want to use the ref=* to indicate the number assigned to your
>> plot."
>>
>
> That I remember.  And found it to be of little value as it didn't render
> and wasn't displayed by iD.
>
> The other interesting fact is that the proposal page for
>>
>
> Ah, the proposal page.  Last time I looked it had a link to an example,
> created by the
> proposer.  Which didn't use ref=* but did use name=*.  The name IS
> displayed by iD,
> but isn't rendered.  So, for the sake of my sanity, I used name as well as
> ref so I could see
> what I was doing.
>
> I should also point out that the name of the plot in the example made it
> clear it was a memorial
> plot (something like "Fred J Bloggs Memorial Plot").  Using the name of
> the person utilizing the
> plot would possibly breach data protection legislation.  Just saying, for
> those tempted to do
> that.
>
> allotments=plot and the wiki page both show this as an "approved" tag,
>> however there were 8 opposing votes and only 9 approving votes in the
>> 14 day voting period, so it should have been marked as rejected back
>> in 2013. Perhaps the status should be changed to "in use", since it is
>> used 11,000 times.
>>
>
> Yeah, the proposer was naughty.  But it's now a de facto tag anyway and
> should be documented
> as such.  One day plots may even be rendered, but I'm not holding my
> breath.
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190107/e35db513/attachment.html>