A greenfield site is one that is currently a field, so it should be tagged as a field until it gets built on. Nothing should ever be tagged "greenfield".
A brownfield site is derelict land that was something once, but is now nothing in particular until someone does something with it. A "brownfield" tag would therefore make some sense, though I'd probably leave it as landuse=industrial (or whatever else it was) and add further tags to say that it's derelict. Richard On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> According to the wiki, landuse=greenfield "Describes land scheduled >> for new development where there have been no buildings before". Does >> this mean that any undeveloped land owned by a developer or zoned as >> planned development is a greenfield? If so, should a bug be filed on >> trac to render it less obtrusively than the construction/brownfield >> brown? >> >> Also, what if land with another landuse like farm is scheduled for new >> development? > > In my experience, these two tags are really unhelpful. Personally, I > don't find the greenfield/brownfield distinction all that relevant to > a map: it's essentially a way of jamming in past history into the > primary tag, where it should go somewhere else. > > Secondly, I don't find that the concept of "scheduled for new > development" should be tagged this way. When a highway is "scheduled > for new development", we mark it "highway=proposed, > proposed=motorway". Something similar would seem appropriate: > "landuse=proposed, proposed=retail". > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
