Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26 Mar 2017, at 15:41, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> I've usually heard "brownfield" in a city planning context to be any formerly 
> built property that is left void of any buildings, save possibly for leftover 
> bits of parking lot, driveway or foundation.  Often the sad result of a 
> tornado and the resulting cleanup.


probably you can't exclude pollution in these cases.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> "brownfield" seems quite misleading as description for a plot formerly
> occupied by a house, it would be appropriate for former industrial or
> commercial areas with suspected pollution (in case of former industrial and
> some kind of commercial use it is very likely that the former use has left
> some kind of pollution). The wiki confirms this point of view.
>

I've usually heard "brownfield" in a city planning context to be any
formerly built property that is left void of any buildings, save possibly
for leftover bits of parking lot, driveway or foundation.  Often the sad
result of a tornado and the resulting cleanup.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Greg Troxel]

Tom Pfeifer  writes:

> On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
>> "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
>> Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.
>
> Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer
> brownfield as above.

I disagree about calling it troll.  I think landuse should have a set of
values such that exactly one value is used for any particular land.
Therefore there will be at least oen value that indicate that the land
isn't really being used.  The underlying negation issue actually does
exist in the world, and it's better to represent it straightforwardly as
an exceptional case than to insist on a different key because the
implied semantics of landuse are uncomfortable with disused.

Part of the reaason I advocate for a mutually exclusive jointly
exhaustive set of landuse tags is that this seems to be the tradition in
human geography.  The other part is that such structure seems to make it
easier for data consumers.

> I agree that landcover=* can describe what has grown there.

I also agree.  But even further, landcover and landuse should be
independent tags, and each location should have both.   If there is a
lot that is currently covered with grass, landcover=grass is
appropriate.  But there should also be a landuse.

I have been unclear on brownfield/greenfield, but would look it up in
the wiki if needed :-) While OSM uses standard British English, I as an
en_US speaker perceive brownfield/greenfield to be relatively recent
politically-inspired terms rather than terms of longer standing and thus
more likely to be understood by en_(not-GB) speakers.

I would also agree that a vacant house would be landuse=residential
disused=yes,

It may be that if brownfield just means "was used, and now more or less
has structures/etc. from the previous use removed" and not "slated for
development", then all cases where I would want to use landuse=disused
would be served by brownfield.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[ael]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:27:40AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote:
> > > English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory 
> > > here.
> > > 
> > > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
> > > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.
> > 
> > I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused.
> > I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer
> > being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major
> > features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and
> > massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is
> > informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use
> > for any other purpose: they are quarries.
> > 
> '
> 
> I think disused is correct ...
> but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, 
> but it gives some comprehension as to what is going on.
> 
> disused:landuse=residential
> 
> This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land use 
> of residential.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:
> 
> Does that help?

Not sure. I think that I discovered something like that but then the
quarries were not rendered. Of course, I don't want to tag for the
renderer, but in this area these features are highly significant, and it
would be misleading - and dangerous if the map is used for navigation -
if they are not shown.

I have just refreshed my memory on what I did, and I see that in one
case I used disused=quarry with landuse=quarry which is being rendered.
That seems to be in the spirit of wiki/Key:disused:, at least.

But you could still object to the apparent contradiction.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-03-14 2:55 GMT+01:00 John Willis :

> I was unaware of a pollution angle.



I get this both explicitly from a dictionary and from wikipedia as also
implicitly from the osm wiki: "Brownfield is a land scheduled for new
development which was previously used for industrial purposes or some
commercial uses." (naming former  "industrial" and "some commercial uses"
implies potential pollution).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[John F. Eldredge]

Note that cities sometimes also include vacant lots that have not yet been 
built on, particularly around the outer edges. When I was a child, there 
was a vacant lot between our house and the next one, because the original 
landowner had chosen to buy two lots and build on just one of them. They 
continued to be sold as a pair through a couple more sales, before the 
vacant lot was eventually sold separately, and built upon.



On March 12, 2017 4:42:35 PM Tristan Anderson  
wrote:


What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas?  
That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building 
that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land is 
currently overgrown or covered in untended grass.  In the past I have used 
brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which is 
often not the case.




--
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[John Willis]

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> "brownfield" seems quite misleading as description for a plot formerly 
> occupied by a house, it would be appropriate for former industrial or 
> commercial areas with suspected pollution

I always understood the definition as "land that was previously used, then 
cleared to prepare for a different use. Lots are usually the site of existing 
structures or similar that were destroyed/demolished. 

With this definition, a vacant lot in a neighborhood (where a building or house 
stood) is definitely a brownfield. 

It is the opposite of greenfield construction - land cleared of native/natural 
habitat to be made ready for use for the first time - bulldozing a forest or 
filling in a swamp for construction. I was unaware of a pollution angle. 

Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hi,
this is not an example of troll tagging.

Trolltag is a tag, not a value.
landuse=disused is therefore not a troll tag

landuse=something + disused=yes 
here disused=yes woudl be a trolltag as it negates another tag
and data consumer must look for this tag to see what
is the current status

See here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag

landuse=disused just does not seem nice to read
but it will cause no problems to data consumers.

 Dalibor (chrabros)

> -Original Message-
>  > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
>  > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.
> 
> Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer 
> brownfield
> as above.
> 
> 
> tom
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[John F. Eldredge]

Yes, that makes sense to me. Nashville, TN, where I live, has purchased 
some houses that were built in flood plains, demolished them, and doesn't 
allow anything to be built there now. The tag disused:landuse=residential 
seems like the logical one to use for those vacant lots. I suspect the 
foundation structures were filled in rather than removed.




On March 13, 2017 6:28:09 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

I favor "landuse=disused".

English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here.

"landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.


I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused.
I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer
being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major
features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and
massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is
informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use
for any other purpose: they are quarries.

Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the
superficial contradiction that you highlight.

Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such?  But that is open to the
same literal objection.


'

I think disused is correct ...
but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, 
but it gives some comprehension as to what is going on.


disused:landuse=residential

This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land 
use of residential.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:

Does that help?




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Warin]

On 14-Mar-17 04:53 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 13.03.2017 16:57, Andy Townsend wrote:

I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does
not mean just "scheduled for development".  It just means "was used for
some development but is no longer".  It _may_ then be used for something
else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites),
but that's not a requirement.

It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of
brownfield sites not scheduled for any development".


Fine, so maybe we losen the Wiki definition a bit, saying that the 
land _might_ be scheduled for future development. That leaves the 
focus on the fact that the land had been used before.


Might is rather too pessimistic for me to place that in OSM. I would 
prefer 'probable', both terms are subjective .. so some will object.

So I would have
the land _probably_  will be developed.


On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for 
something.

> Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.

Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer 
brownfield as above.


I think it says what it was used for .. a disused church is still a church.
The question should be ... is it still recognisable for what it was?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Warin]

On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

I favor "landuse=disused".

English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here.

"landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.


I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused.
I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer
being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major
features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and
massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is
informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use
for any other purpose: they are quarries.

Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the
superficial contradiction that you highlight.

Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such?  But that is open to the
same literal objection.


'

I think disused is correct ...
but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, but 
it gives some comprehension as to what is going on.

disused:landuse=residential

This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land use 
of residential.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:

Does that help?




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[ael]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> > I favor "landuse=disused".
> 
> English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here.
> 
> "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
> Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.


I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused.
I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer
being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major
features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and
massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is
informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use
for any other purpose: they are quarries.

Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the
superficial contradiction that you highlight.

Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such?  But that is open to the
same literal objection.

ael

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Tristan Anderson]

Thanks for the input everone.  I like the idea of grass/scrub/grassland 
depending on the site if there is no trace of the demolished buildings.  If 
there is still something like a foundation, or slabs of broken concrete or 
other debris, then it would be tagged as a brownfield.

There seems to be consensus that brownfield sites are not necessarily slated 
for redevelopment so the wiki pages should be changed to reflect this.  What is 
less clear is whether the term brownfield is limited to sites contaminated from 
past industrial activity, or whether broken slabs of concrete from a house 
would qualify.  In my opinion, they would.


From: Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org>
Sent: March 13, 2017 1:53 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

On 13.03.2017 16:57, Andy Townsend wrote:
> I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does
> not mean just "scheduled for development".  It just means "was used for
> some development but is no longer".  It _may_ then be used for something
> else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites),
> but that's not a requirement.
>
> It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of
> brownfield sites not scheduled for any development".

Fine, so maybe we losen the Wiki definition a bit, saying that the land
_might_ be scheduled for future development. That leaves the focus on
the fact that the land had been used before.

On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
 > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
 > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.

Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer
brownfield as above.

I agree that landcover=* can describe what has grown there.

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Tagging Info Page - 
OpenStreetMap<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
lists.openstreetmap.org
Your email address: Your name (optional): You may enter a privacy password 
below. This provides only mild security, but should prevent others from messing 
with ...



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 13.03.2017 16:57, Andy Townsend wrote:

I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does
not mean just "scheduled for development".  It just means "was used for
some development but is no longer".  It _may_ then be used for something
else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites),
but that's not a requirement.

It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of
brownfield sites not scheduled for any development".


Fine, so maybe we losen the Wiki definition a bit, saying that the land 
_might_ be scheduled for future development. That leaves the focus on 
the fact that the land had been used before.


On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
> Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.

Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer 
brownfield as above.


I agree that landcover=* can describe what has grown there.

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/03/2017 21:42, Tristan Anderson wrote:


... In the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled 
for redevelopment, which is often not the case.




I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does 
not mean just "scheduled for development".  It just means "was used for 
some development but is no longer".  It _may_ then be used for something 
else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites), 
but that's not a requirement.


It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of 
brownfield sites not scheduled for any development".


Cheers,

Andy

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> I favor "landuse=disused".

English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here.

"landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.

use = no use?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-03-13 14:09 GMT+01:00 Shawn K. Quinn :

> On 03/13/2017 07:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >
> > I favor "landuse=disused".
> > That implies that there was previous significant human use, and now
> > there is no real use.
>
> +1
>
> I really like this idea; it fixes the issue of using
> brownfield/greenfield, which imply "slated for future development".
>


+1, I also like the idea. details could be added in disused=...



>
> My suggestion including landuse=grass comes from JOSM presets. Should we
> change these to natural=grass or similar?



I'd prefer landcover=grass if the only notion is "grass"

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 03/13/2017 07:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> I favor "landuse=disused".
> That implies that there was previous significant human use, and now
> there is no real use.

+1

I really like this idea; it fixes the issue of using
brownfield/greenfield, which imply "slated for future development".

My suggestion including landuse=grass comes from JOSM presets. Should we
change these to natural=grass or similar? I agree that it doesn't belong
in landuse=* unless there's some subtlety about landuse=grass that I'm
missing.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Greg Troxel]

I favor "landuse=disused".
That implies that there was previous significant human use, and now
there is no real use.

As to "if no use, no tag", the point is that there is a difference
between knowing that an area is essentially abandoned, vs it being
forested or meadow or whatever and being left as it is, which is quite
different.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-03-12 23:12 GMT+01:00 Andy Townsend :

> I'd use "brownfield", both in OSM and more generally, for land that isn't
> scheduled for redevelopment yet.



"brownfield" seems quite misleading as description for a plot formerly
occupied by a house, it would be appropriate for former industrial or
commercial areas with suspected pollution (in case of former industrial and
some kind of commercial use it is very likely that the former use has left
some kind of pollution). The wiki confirms this point of view.
I know, the only other established landuse tag in OSM for vacant building
plots is "greenfield", and this requires no previous occupation by
buildings according to the wiki.

So basically it doesn't seem we have an established tag for this kind of
plots, and something new will have to be proposed.

Cheers,
Martin



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgreenfield
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbrownfield
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[John Willis]

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 7:12 AM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> 
> I'd use "brownfield", both in OSM and more generally, for land that isn't 
> scheduled for redevelopment yet.

Brownfield, disused, and natural=scrub is a common combo for me when a plot was 
cleared for sale, then sits for a long time and overgrown with 2m tall weedy 
scrub.

Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Warin]

+1

 If you don't know .. then don't tag it.

(grass is not a land use, it is a land cover ... landcover=grass)


On 13-Mar-17 12:24 PM, Dalibor Jelínek wrote:

+1
:-)

  Dalibor


-Original Message-
From: Wolfgang Zenker [mailto:wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:52 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

* Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> [170312 23:51]:

On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote:

What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas?
  That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other
building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains,
and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass.  In
the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for
redevelopment, which is often not the case.

Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood
depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea?

As that land is apparently unused, how about NOT tagging any landuse at all?

Wolfgang

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Dalibor Jelínek]

+1
:-)

 Dalibor

> -Original Message-
> From: Wolfgang Zenker [mailto:wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:52 AM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
> 
> * Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> [170312 23:51]:
> > On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote:
> >> What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas?
> >>  That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other
> >> building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains,
> >> and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass.  In
> >> the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for
> >> redevelopment, which is often not the case.
> 
> > Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood
> > depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea?
> 
> As that land is apparently unused, how about NOT tagging any landuse at all?
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Wolfgang Zenker]

* Shawn K. Quinn  [170312 23:51]:
> On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote:
>> What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas?
>>  That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building
>> that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land
>> is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass.  In the past I have
>> used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which
>> is often not the case.

> Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood
> depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea?

As that land is apparently unused, how about NOT tagging any landuse
at all?

Wolfgang

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote:
> What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas?
>  That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building
> that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land
> is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass.  In the past I have
> used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which
> is often not the case.

Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood
depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/03/17 21:42, Tristan Anderson wrote:


What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban 
areas?  That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other 
building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, 
and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass.  In 
the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for 
redevelopment, which is often not the case.





I'd use "brownfield", both in OSM and more generally, for land that 
isn't scheduled for redevelopment yet.


Cheers,

Andy

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging