[Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Jun 6 04:20:06 UTC 2020
On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by steveaOSM at softworkers.com:
> "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this
> land might be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could
> still build a patio and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some
> trees, it is my residential land and I am allowed to do that,
> meaning it has residential use, even if it is "unimproved" presently.
> It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.
I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for; shade, to
sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think about things.
People park their cars, caravans and boats under them.
They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my residence.
If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will grass and
flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped as residential
landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous.
> These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to appear
> to be removing property rights from residential landowners (by
> diminishing landuse=residential areas)
> Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect property
> rights and may remove them?
> That is ridiculous.
> but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do
> remain in a natural state, while distinctly and presently "having"
> residential landuse.
> For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a clearly
> incorrect mapping.
Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that does not
mean they are not parks because of the land cover.
I would contend similar consideration by held for residential landuse.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging