[OSM-talk] Rejected: Landuse=green_space

[Anthony]

On 6/11/07, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > 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.
>
Is that what this tag is proposed for, identifying people's lawns, or
islands of grass in the middle of roads?  I thought the intention was
for larger spaces (the example was about 8400 square meters in area),
and islands of grass in the middle of roads can have their own
designation if enough people care to identify them.

> As to rendering, this green space might not be rendered on some maps
> where it is useful to render parks.
>
The ownership factor is important for that, but I wonder whether or
not it's more appropriate to tag ownership features separately.  Some
places even you would designate as a "park" aren't open to the public
and therefore wouldn't be an appropriate place for a picnic, right?