[OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space

[Lester Caine]

Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
>> I think this is a shame. Again, 3 votes is pathetic and neither opposed the
>> principle, just the name of the tag!
> 
> Well, 3 votes might seem pathetic but if not more people care to vote
> pro or contra proposed features, than these are the number of votes
> we'll have to live with. So, I'd say, given that the voting period has
> been some time, even a 3 vote majority is a majority. (That in this
> special case just a modification of the proposal was required, is a
> different story).
> 
>> I will reintroduce this proposal as 'landuse=grass' as that's what the
>> voters against wanted, even though it doesn't really describe the concept
>> properly: many such islands, corners, breathing spaces have trees and
>> shrubbery. If I'd noticed at the time I would have made that comments. But
>> the exact tag name really doesn't matter, it's just a word; people do get so
>> exercised by what the exact name of tags should be.
> 
> A landuse=grass sounds nice.

Which is a complete different thing to green_space - at least in my reading of 
things. green space or green belt is a somewhat nebulous land planning term 
and while it may be nice to include development plans on the map, just getting 
reality down would be nice first :)

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php