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

[Tom Chance]

Ahoy,

On Wednesday 21 February 2007 18:59:48 Ben Robbins wrote:
> landuse=field (used for pitches rather than feilds it would seem)

That's my crime, I'm afraid. What I wanted was something to show up green 
space for Reading University campus, and I rather lazily chose "field". I 
can't remember the discussion that led to it, but I'm not beholden to it.


> 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.

The four tags seem sensible, though I don't understand why you then switch 
between landuse/natural for the "wood" value. I would have thought a private 
wood would still be "natural=wood" and if it's used for charcoal burning, 
timer, burials or any other purpose that would be covered by 
amenity/landuse/etc.



> 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.

As someone who researched and is very interested in the hair splitting around 
the history of commons in the UK, I object ;-) To my mind it would fit your 
schema above perfectly well to have "landuse/leisure=village_green" exist, 
and imply things like "natural=grass" and "access=yes". It doesn't break your 
schema, and adds information that we'd miss out on if we just had the implied 
tags. The same goes for common land - try telling a Geordie that the Town 
Moor is just a patch of grass with public access!

Kind regards,
Tom

-- 
| Green Party Speaker on Intellectual Property and Free Software |
| http://tom.acrewoods.net    ::    http://www.greenparty.org.uk |