[OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space

David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com
Mon Jun 11 16:18:51 BST 2007



> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org]On Behalf Of Anthony
> Sent: 11 June 2007 14:59
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space
>
>
> On 6/11/07, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>
> 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)
>
> Why doesn't the term "park" describe that?  In your other message
> you mention "the island in the middle of a group of houses".  I
> can see not calling that a "park", as it's really more of a
> "courtyard".  But the link you give shows an area which isn't
> enclosed by houses, but only has buildings bordering it on one
> side.  I'd have no problem calling that a "park".

Because it isn't a park. A park is a more formal thing - an area
specifically provided and maintained for recreation. (Assuming we're not
talking about National Parks or Car Parks ...) a park it usually has things
like carefully tended flower beds, seating, a pond, a fence or railing
around it, and a sign that says "Trumpton Park". However, park is the
closest we've got, so that is indeed what I have been tagging this stuff as.

What I'm talking about here is the usually fairly small areas of open space
between the houses, usually grassed over. You must all have come across them
while mapping surely - the dead end street that goes round an island at the
end where the island is grass,or has a few small trees or shrubs. Or a group
of houses set back from the road with access by footway and the area between
the footway and road is grass. Or a corner cut off by the road while the
houses form a triangle, leaing a corner of green space.

Marking them on the map is useful IMO, because they are landmarks. You might
well assume otherwise that there are houses on both sides of a circular
road.

Perhaps the word 'middle' was wrong, as it isn't always strictly in the
middle. Though that was the best photo I could find at the time, there are
houses behind as well on the other side of the road. Such areas are usually
bounded by roads and/or houses all the way round.

Am I missing something here? Am I the only one that notices these areas and
feels they are part of the urban architecture? That they are significant?
That they add to the usefulness and attractiveness of the map? I'm having a
hard time seeing why I'm having to argue the case so hard for something
which seems to me to be so obvious and that I encounter several times every
time I go out mapping.

David





More information about the talk mailing list