[talk-au] Country homesteads?

Sat Apr 23 08:27:51 UTC 2022

On 23/4/22 11:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Thanks all!
>
> Yeah, the various wiki comments re size as always are very European & 
> don't suit Oz conditions.
>
> I think that place=farm + name=* seems to be the way to go, so I'll 
> test that & see how it works?
>
> One of the factors in OP making them hamlets could have been that that 
> will render, so will have to see if =farm does as well?

I think farm does render on the standard map. See Node: Mundi Mundi 
(2648982062) for farm and Way: Mundi Mundi (259480275) for homestead.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2648982062#map=17/-31.88185/141.04014

>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 18:39, cleary <osm at 97k.com> wrote:
>
>
>     Generally, I would suggest a node at the hub of the farm (usually
>     in the vicinity of the main residence)
>     place=farm
>     name=*
>     operator=*
>
>     In regard to farm boundaries, I think it has been OSM practice not
>     to map lot/property boundaries.
>
>     Most farms today don't employ many people and employees frequently
>     live in nearby towns etc. so place=farm is appropriate.  In more
>     isolated areas, some very large farms may still accommodate
>     workers and sometimes their families - in such cases
>     place=isolated_dwelling might be appropriate as I think it implies
>     a larger population than a farm. I'd suggest that it has many
>     years since Australian farms had enough residents to be considered
>     as hamlets. In fact, increasingly farms have no residents. In some
>     cases multiple farms are operated from a single homestead but, if
>     each farm is separately named, I think each should still be
>     separately mapped. Farms with animals such as dairy cattle or
>     poultry etc may need people on site overnight but grazing cattle
>     and crops such as cotton/wheat/rice etc may not need people in the
>     immediate vicinity - and security cameras and alarms are
>     increasingly used so that people can go to off-farm homes at
>     night. The "homestead" may become an administrative office plus
>     staff facilities when there is no-one resident on the property.
>
>     In some cases, where public roads go through farms (usually cattle
>     grids and signs at the respective boundaries), I have added 
>     is_in:farm=*  on the section of road that is within the particular
>     farm, but the "is_in" tag seems now less used than in the past. 
>     Perhaps there is a case for mapping lot/property boundaries where
>     the properties are very large farms but I will leave that for
>     others to advocate. In South Australia's pastoral district, each
>     farm has its own "suburb" boundaries in the official government
>     suburb/locality database - but I am not aware of any farm
>     boundaries designated in this way in any other state.
>
>
>
>
>     On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, at 3:27 PM, Bob Cameron wrote:
>     > Remote areas and larger farms generally have been troubling me too
>     > Graeme. I make no distinction about numbers of people, just a
>     > landuse=farm node. (so I copied a very prolific mapper!) Recently I
>     > noted that landuse:farm has been deprecated and to use
>     > landuse:farmland, but that complains about being a node. There
>     is no
>     > easy way to define a farm boundary. I think in terms of the
>     mailbox,
>     > driveway and largest concentration of activity being the node
>     centre.
>     >
>     > And the name is the farm name, not the house name.. maybe!
>     >
>     > Remote cattle stations can support an extended family (in more
>     than one
>     > homestead) and other many onsite (staff) people. Are the working
>     farm
>     > staff include in any people sizing calculations? ouch!
>     >
>     > Personally I don't think it a good idea to tag a farm that creates
>     > commercial income with any notion of the number of people. It
>     gets a
>     > bit blurry when it is an unusual group like a religious order or
>     non
>     > profit retreat, but they already have other tags.
>     >
>     > Cheers Bob
>     >
>     > On 22/4/22 14:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>     >> Also bringing discussion out here from Discord.
>     >>
>     >> An anonymous user is hitting Notes with quite a few entries
>     yesterday to say that remote homesteads are incorrectly tagged as
>     hamlets eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3145380, but looking
>     at this particular place
>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=1829712552#map=17/-21.96106/148.80882,
>     I'd say that "hamlet" was probably correct in that there could
>     well be a couple of families living there?
>     >>
>     >> Other suggestions that have been made are
>     place=isolated_dwelling or place=farm.
>     >>
>     >> Bit of a grey area, I guess? Isolated-dwelling says 1-2
>     families only, hamlet says 100-200 people, while place=farm says
>     "a family of farmers". Guess it really depends on the particular
>     property involved, which would require detailed local knowledge?
>     >>
>     >> Thoughts?
>     >>
>     >> Thanks
>     >>
>     >> Graeme
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Talk-au mailing list
>     >> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>     >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Talk-au mailing list
>     > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-au mailing list
>     Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220423/1910dea4/attachment.htm>