[Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 02:20:06 UTC 2020
On 8/6/20 10:16 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by 61sundowner at gmail.com:
> On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>> Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by steveaOSM at softworkers.com
>> <mailto: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
> Yes, landuse=residential may include areas with tree, I fully agree here.
> But "portions of these areas do remain in a natural state" with
> residential status limited
> solely to legal status (land ownership, legal right to build something
> there and start using
> this land as landuse=residential) cases seem quite dubious to me.
As far as I know some of the trees are 'natural' on my place... I still
How do you know that the 'residential status' is limited to the legal
and not additionally used for the personal enjoyment of the people
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging