Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: I think Brownfield would be useful for mapping current status of previously developed land, not currently used, and where the future use is unknown or not agreed upon. Agreed. There are plenty of tracts of land you can see in aerial photos that have clearly had something previously (including things as mundane as car parking or sheds), but it would be difficult to know if there are actually plans for future development. Here (Florida) the land will be rezoned PD (planned development). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
2010/10/5 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: Planning Permission is often not acted upon, and we should be mapping 'whats on the ground' or a status that affecting the land (eg Nature Reserve). Planning Permission is doesn't impact the land unless acted upon, in which case the land should be tagged landuse=construction +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
2010/10/6 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2010/10/5 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: Planning Permission is often not acted upon, and we should be mapping 'whats on the ground' or a status that affecting the land (eg Nature Reserve). Planning Permission is doesn't impact the land unless acted upon, in which case the land should be tagged landuse=construction sorry, I was too fast, I do think that we could tag brownfield and greenfield status, but not as landuse. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
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
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
On 10/5/10 7:15 AM, Richard Mann wrote: 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. i concur landuse=industrial disused=yes is pretty consistent with what is getting done now. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
On 5 October 2010 12:15, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: 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 Don't totally agree with Brownfield definition. We're dealing tags which appear to be poorly derived from British terms used in the British Planning System (eg building houses). The UK Government tries to encourage development on land that has been previously developed, and tries to avoid development on land that has never been built on. This advice to local council planners is found in national *Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing * (PPS3) which uses the term Greenfield but not Brownfield. In the UK the definitions are more or less as follows: *Greenfield can be defined as* *land that has never been built on or where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape over time.* *Brownfield is used to shorten the term 'Previously developed land and can be defined as* land that is, or was, previously occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings) and associated fixed surface infrastructure. As of summer 2010 it does not include 'greenfield' land associated with a building (eg Gardens behind a house were until this summer considered brownfield in the UK) Putting aside the British English definitions we have to look for uses in OSM. I think Brownfield would be useful for mapping current status of previously developed land, not currently used, and where the future use is unknown or not agreed upon. Greenfield...not sure about this one. I don't like the current OSM use. The current use of mapping planning permission of land that has not been developed seems bad practice. Planning Permission is often not acted upon, and we should be mapping 'whats on the ground' or a status that affecting the land (eg Nature Reserve). Planning Permission is doesn't impact the land unless acted upon, in which case the land should be tagged landuse=construction Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
On 6 October 2010 07:57, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Also agreed. Although there are cases of green grass with big signs all around selling off house and land packages. Clearly something will be built. Does it matter that construction hasn't technically started yet? (IMHO, given the difficulties of keeping OSM totally up to date, not much...) Usually in those cases they have built roads, so it's not as if there is nothing on the ground. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
2010/10/4 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: 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? I would say any land zoned as planned development (land where there is a right to build). I don't see a point in tagging land owned by a developer but where there is no right to build, as such. If so, should a bug be filed on trac to render it less obtrusively than the construction/brownfield brown? probably yes. I think there can be a huge difference between actual constructions and a piece of land where maybe in the future there will be build. Also, what if land with another landuse like farm is scheduled for new development? Generally I'd say that the actual landuse (here landuse=farmyard) overrules in such cases the plans, but otherwise you would have 2 options: - draw another time the exactly same geometry (or use 2 multipolygons without inner in case there is no holes) and tag one as farmyard, the other one as brownfield or use landuse=farmyard;brownfield actually I put brownfield because there is already a building (seems to fit to the wiki definition), but I'm not sufficiently familiar with anglo-saxon construction terminology to decide whether this is the right term in this context. I'd personally prefer option 1 (separate objects with multipolygons) because it allows for better association of other details like name etc. which might well differ. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
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? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
On 04/10/2010 23:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/4 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:11 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer I believe brownfield has the connotation of something substantial having been there, like a military base or factory, that needs to be cleaned up first. so basically brownfield is about contaminations and not about development? I would say it describes an area that had previous man made development on it, that the local authority gave planning permission to redevelop it for, usually, commercial or residential usage. This area could include contaminants such as oils, chemicals (heavy) metals etc. What a strange landuse ;-) It's a fairly common description in the UK or such cases. Would it be a brownfield if a factory is scheduled to become a forest? I would say yes, although I'm not aware of a direct to forest development in the UK. Quarries are often filled in returned to green land such as agricultural use etc. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
