Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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"

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

> 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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

: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 l

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

+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 >

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

* 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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

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