[OSM-talk] Several approved features moved to Map_features page

[Ben Robbins]

Right, I shall say this, becasue the conversation seems to have become more 
productive again.

My point (wich in part this has derived from) was that the keys and values 
don't match up.  If commons and greens are the same or not; it doesn't mean 
that they should be in different keys.  There are differences between all of 
the following, but not enough to give them seperate keys and I don't think 
they should be used in the predefined fashion in which they have appeared.

landuse=field (used for pitches rather than feilds it would seem)
leisure=pitch
leuisre=common
leisure=garden
landuse=village_green
landuse=recreation_ground
natrual=heath
lanudse=green_space (proposed)

Now all these, and infinatly more, could just fit under the following.

natural= The properites of the surface
access= Who can go on the land
leisure= What the land is used for
landuse= How the land is used for profit.

E.g.  A priavte wood maybe landuse=wood, access=no, a Natural Trust wood (UK 
example) would be natural=wood, access=yes.  A village green would be 
natural=grass, access=yes, A recreational ground might be natural=grass, 
leisure=cricket access=yes, a hay field might be landuse=grass, access=no.  
Defining things by there elements enshores the tags are suitable for all 
places not just for places in UK or similar.

At least this way the keys have some value, and a new tag doesn't need to be 
proposed for every single form of grass that doens't match the predefined 
status of the exsisting tags. The only tag here that doesn't yet exsist is 
natural=grass, but is appearing in many other forms, such as "green_space" 
but with all the extra baggage.

I'm currently concerned that the key's have no point other than to fill the 
space next to a value.  Tags should be building blocks, with whcih you can 
assemble any feature.  Predefined tags should be a shortcut for common 
groups of tags.  But these half way tags cause more problems than they fix I 
think.

As for the difference between a common and a green:

>>In which case, you'll be defining an area of (usually) grassy common
>>land somewhere NOT necessarily in the middle of a village (perhaps even

>I would usually expect a village green to be an area of mown grass, usually 
>used
>for leisure. A common could be the above, but is often also an area of land 
>that
>sheep or other animals graze on (probably more the historical use). 
>Therefore
>they are different IMHO.

Village greens were frequently used for lifestock.  Hence why a lot of them 
have ponds.  The green in the next village to me  is still used for 
livestock and isn't mowed.

A vilalge green and a common are very similar.  In fact looking at the 
wikipedia artical, the 5th word on the Village green page is 'common'. "A 
village green is a common open area which is a part of a settlement."  
Common linking to the page on Commons.

historic=___, or access=permissive could be used if we really need to split 
hairs.

Ben

_________________________________________________________________
Click Here To Find Your Perfect Match This Valentines!  
http://msnuk.match.com/