[OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space

[Alex Mauer]

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Barnett, Phillip <Phillip.Barnett at itn.co.uk> wrote:
>> You're not the only one David - I absolutely agree that these areas of
>> grass (usually only a few 10's of metres) are quite common in some areas
>> (notably Cambridge) in British housing estates, typically mid-century
>> developments, and certainly need mapping, as they are useful visual
>> landmarks.

This sort of thing is also common in the US.

> 
> I can't speak for other people, but for me the problem lies more in
> the fact that I don't see the point in distinguishing between those
> and a park. Presumably they're going to be rendered the same colour as
> a park and they are used for the same purposes as a park, why not call
> it a park.

Because it's not a park, as David Earl pointed out: "a park is a more
formal thing - an area specifically provided and maintained for
recreation."  They also tend to be named, and be destinations in themselves.

I'd certainly not be pleased if I was looking for a place to go on a
picnic and was directed to what is (legally) somebody's lawn, or to an
island of grass in the middle of a road.

As to rendering, this green space might not be rendered on some maps
where it is useful to render parks.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070611/c027171a/attachment.pgp>