[OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space

[David Earl]

Lester said:
> The reason *I* would not support green_space is BECAUSE it has specific
> meaning already and trying to define it differently is pointless.

It does? Where? Do you mean within OSM or in general? "Green belt" or
"greenfield" do have specific meanings in planning terms, in the UK at any
rate. But "green space" deosn't have that same connotation AFAIK.

Anyway the point is moot, because it was voted down and I've reintroduced it
as "landuse=grass".

> The one think we NEED to do as a mater of urgency is pin down a
> small set of
> predefined names for things and stick to it. The 'protocol' may allow
> everybody to use their own favourite term for things without any
> limitation,
> but I STILL maintain that SOME level of restriction on the basic
> keys should
> be MANAGED, so that we are required to use the terms that are
> already being
> rendered?

Absolutely, as my previous message said at length. Flexibility to grow,
good; flexibility to wilfully diverge from a standard, not good.

David