[OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space

[David Earl]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org]On Behalf Of Lester Caine
> Sent: 11 June 2007 13:49
> To: OSM Talk
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space
>
>
> 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 :)


Yes, that would be different. But that wasn't what was proposed. Perhaps
your "reading of things" didn't actually include reading the proposal. There
already are long-standing tags in Map_features for development areas
(despite their non-reality!): landuse=greenfield and landuse=brownfield.

In any case, I've now put this back in Proposed_features as landuse=grass,
even though it would include shrubbery etc. I really, really don't care what
the tag is called, but I'd really also rather not go round in circles again
while another group of people argue about yet another alternative tag name.

This is the kind of situation I'm trying to deal with:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?lat=52.22672412022378&lon=0.12798235
246826553&zoom=17
(the green area with Nicholson Way footways)
Here's a not particularly good photo of it (not mine!).
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/3865/
It's not a park, just an area of grassed open space with a few shrubs in the
middle of urban streets, but park is the closest we have at present.

David