Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Philip Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 16:11 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > > > Yes, if animals are intended to graze on the grass, if the grass > will be harvested for use as > >fodder (what my earlier message termed a hay field), or if sod will > subsequently be transplanted > >elsewhere (a sod farm), then the grass is being grown as a crop, and > >landuse=grass is appropriate. > > > Turf is probably a more appropriate word, sod is likely to be pulled > by > various filters as it is a minor swear word. > > Phil > This is one of the dialect differences between American English and British English. In American usage, "sod" means grass plants. Replanting grass on a bare section of ground is termed resodding, and facilities that grow grass to be transplanted, roots, dirt, and all, are termed sod farms. British speech sometimes uses the "grass" meaning of sod, from what I read, as in Irishmen referring to their homeland as "the old sod", as well as the perjorative usage of sod to mean sodomite. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 16:11 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > Yes, if animals are intended to graze on the grass, if the grass will be > harvested for use as >fodder (what my earlier message termed a hay field), or if sod will >subsequently be transplanted >elsewhere (a sod farm), then the grass is being grown as a crop, and >landuse=grass is appropriate. > Turf is probably a more appropriate word, sod is likely to be pulled by various filters as it is a minor swear word. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "landuse=residential" in rural areas
As others have said, I usually tag the entire parcel, as long as it's not used for farming. I'd somewhat like a way to tag low-density rural residential land-use, but as it is I think the absence of a thick network of residential streets is a decent clue that one isn't looking at a built-up area. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "landuse=residential" in rural areas
In built-up areas, almost all land is used. straightfoward; but in the countryside houses often have large grounds attached to them, and even fields. In particular there are quite a few I think the question is if the lot that the house is on (assuming lots in England work like lots in the US, since we probably took your way of doing it a while ago :-) is mostly used to contain the house and for what might be called household purposes, or if it's a house with a farm and there's a farming business. In my area, many house lots are 1.5 acres, and some more, and often have woods (area of trees, unmanaged). I have only tagged more recent subdivisions (which are quite striking in pattern on imagery, with obvious borders), and not older lots. My take would be that the entire lot on which a house sits should be landuse=residential, as long as there isn't an ancilliary farming business. pgp9wyaNm3uVn.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "landuse=residential" in rural areas
I'd include houses' gardens in the "residential land use area" associated with the houses --- if they're large rural gardens, it helps to distinguish them from fields. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] "landuse=residential" in rural areas
Hi all, I'm currently entering some survey data from my summer holiday (in rural England). Living in a city, tagging "landuse=residential" is straightfoward; but in the countryside houses often have large grounds attached to them, and even fields. In particular there are quite a few rows of houses following a highway, which have enormous gardens/grounds/fields behind them. I can see the logic of "abutters=residential" for this, but I understand that this has been deprecated. So how should "landuse=residential" be applied in these circumstances? Intuitively I'd like to just use it around the immediate environs of the houses (to include e.g. any kitchen-garden, garage, outbuildings etc), since tagging the whole lot (grounds and all) as landuse=residential would (to me) imply a large built-up area which does not actually exist. But I realise I'm running the risk of "tagging-for-the-renderer" accusations here ;-) I've read this previous thread [1] and the associated wiki page, but it seems to be concerned with urban areas and small plots of land, whereas I'm talking about much larger areas in rural settings. Maybe this doesn't matter, though... what do people think? Thanks in advance, David (user Pgd81). [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-May/007700.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
