[Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Warin 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
>     landuse.
>
> 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 
use them.

How do you know that the 'residential status' is limited to the legal 
and not additionally used for the personal enjoyment of the people 
residing there?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200609/ab69db43/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list