[Tagging] leisure=garden
Hi, the wiki page of leisure=garden says that every ordinary garden, which is not accessible by the public (not even once), can be tagged as leisure=garden. You just have to tag it to access=private. I actually do not think that this is helpful for anybody. On the other hand: Isn't it already included in landuse=residential? So will we really need this tag leisure=garden? I would propose the usage of leisure=garden for public accessible (which might include some private gardens) with a focus on more special plants. Maybe as a subpart of a park. Otherwise it should be deprecated in my opinion. What do you think? Cheers cracklinrain ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 24/05/11 00:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > [...] the landuse values describing built-up space should usually not be > split below plot size. I'll read that as another vote against small landuse plots, but again: there's nothing in the wiki explaining this fact, and in fact landuse is regularly used for plot-sized areas of land. > leisure=garden inside a landuse=residential area could be used for a > private garden, maybe together with access=private. You can also use > garden:type=residential with it: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification -1, Residential private gardens are not for general user's leisure activities, and therefore no not belong in the leisure=* key. See my original post. I'm easy about whether I recommend landuse=residential residential=garden or just residential=garden within a landuse=residential polygon, or even garden=residential on its own within a landuse=residential polygon (sort of like the stalled proposal's wrongheaded :type key, but allowing the user to decide whether general leisure purposes fit as well. A leisure=garden would be strictly optional, and we should document the meaning of adding that). Which do people prefer? -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
It should not be changed, garden is garden - private or not. Filtering out access=private to show only public ones is trivial. I see also no arguments for changing meaning of tag used over 150k times. On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 01:37:06 -0800 cracklinrain <cra_klinr...@gmx.de> wrote Hi, the wiki page of leisure=garden says that every ordinary garden, which is not accessible by the public (not even once), can be tagged as leisure=garden. You just have to tag it to access=private. I actually do not think that this is helpful for anybody. On the other hand: Isn't it already included in landuse=residential? So will we really need this tag leisure=garden? I would propose the usage of leisure=garden for public accessible (which might include some private gardens) with a focus on more special plants. Maybe as a subpart of a park. Otherwise it should be deprecated in my opinion. What do you think? Cheers cracklinrain ___ 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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
I'm fine with leisure=garden for private/common/public gardens Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 07:24 schreef Pee Wee : > Hi all > > > I would like your opinion on the next issue. > > > On the Dutch forum (googletranslate > <https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fid%3D66660>) > I started a thread about the tag leisure=garden for private front/back > gardens. Reason was that I saw mappers using this for whole blocks of > houses that were not publicly accessible. That usage seemed completely > different from all the other leisure values > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure>. > > In the first versions > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dgarden&action=history> > of the wiki page of leisure=garden there was no mentioning of private > front/back gardens. It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed > meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from > the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order > to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee) > sometime additional tags like “access=private” and > “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no > additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible) > should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that > there are more objections > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden#Deprecate_this_for_private.2C_residential_gardens.3F> > to using this tag for private (non accessible) gardens. > > > > > My question to you experts are: > > > > 1. Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the > outcome? > > 2. If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden > should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if > so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are > partially/completely paved?) > > > > > (PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private > front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case > someone wants to. ) > > > Cheers > > Peter (PeeWee32) > > ___ > 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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
On 14/07/19 16:48, Pee Wee wrote: Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Marc Gemis <mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>>: On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM Pee Wee mailto:piewi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ? No, we refine this with additional tags. This method can be applied to private gardens as well. That is a good question. I would agree with you if the k/v would be e.g. natural=garden. This describes what it is and not what it is used for. Leisure=garden does not only describe what it is (garden) but also what it is used for (leisure). If I look at all the other leisure values they give me the impression that they are meant for places one can go to recreate and mainly publicly accessible. OSM maps leisure=pitch in 'private' areas - eg football fields in stadiums and club grounds... these are not 'freely available' for all to use. One could argue that you can also recreate in your own garden but still these private gardens are a dissonant from all the other leisure values. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure "The leisure tag is for places people go in their spare time." Nothing here says it has to be 'open to the public'. Most people go into their garden in their spare time. So 'private gardens' match the leisure key. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
Hi all I would like your opinion on the next issue. On the Dutch forum (googletranslate <https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fid%3D0>) I started a thread about the tag leisure=garden for private front/back gardens. Reason was that I saw mappers using this for whole blocks of houses that were not publicly accessible. That usage seemed completely different from all the other leisure values <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure>. In the first versions <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dgarden&action=history> of the wiki page of leisure=garden there was no mentioning of private front/back gardens. It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee) sometime additional tags like “access=private” and “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible) should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that there are more objections <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden#Deprecate_this_for_private.2C_residential_gardens.3F> to using this tag for private (non accessible) gardens. My question to you experts are: 1. Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the outcome? 2. If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are partially/completely paved?) (PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case someone wants to. ) Cheers Peter (PeeWee32) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch > how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area > between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings etc. > or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's > place and only there? > I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be included. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Marc Gemis : > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM Pee Wee wrote: > > Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a > private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible > by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ? > No, we refine this with additional tags. > This method can be applied to private gardens as well. > > That is a good question. I would agree with you if the k/v would be e.g. natural=garden. This describes what it is and not what it is used for. Leisure=garden does not only describe what it is (garden) but also what it is used for (leisure). If I look at all the other leisure values they give me the impression that they are meant for places one can go to recreate and mainly publicly accessible. One could argue that you can also recreate in your own garden but still these private gardens are a dissonant from all the other leisure values. Cheers Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly > changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at > the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely > different (although it was marked as a stub). OK, I see what you mean (I was confused anyway because I remembered also a different content ;-) ). Still the old version is IMHO not useful either. On one hand it is an identical meaning to park. On the other "decorative" and "structured" are highly subjective terms when it comes to gardens. Are you aware of the two main lines of European garden history? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden Reading your post I get the feeling that you think mainly about garden as a French Garden. Still I'm missing the difference from "leisure=garden" and "leisure=park", that's why I think it's not a bad idea to change the meaning of leisure=garden also officially in OSM. > Yes, a lot of those areas are here in Czech Republic, that's why I > brought this up, because we were discussing it in talk-cz and did not > came to any definite conclusion - some think this is an inappropriate > usage (like I do), some think it's ok. you see. leisure=garden has for a long time not corresponded to the wiki definition, that's probably why someone changed it. > Anyway, the page of leisure=garden was recently significantly changed > not only in the level of detail, but the meaning of this tag seems to be > shifted by this added content. In current state I can't see any clear > definition/description of what this tag should be used for. but before neither ;-) > As you said there is already a lot of leisure=garden areas, so the clear > criteria for its usage should be resolved rather sooner then later, when > the number grows even bigger. If anyone is able to give me a clear > description of the meaning of this tag (that would include cut grass > behind a family house), I'll shut up and use it according to that > definition. what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a garden. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
> > > 1. Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the > outcome? > > 2. If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden > should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if > so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are > partially/completely paved?) > > > > > (PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private > front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case > someone wants to. ) > > > Cheers > > Peter (PeeWee32) > The first part of question 1 was answered by Marc Zoutendijk on the Dutch OSM forum. The mailing list can be searched so here are are results for leisure=garden. <https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=tagging%40openstreetmap.org&q=leisure%3Dgarden> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 24/05/11 10:09, Sander Deryckere wrote: > [...] there are lots of > buildings (normal houses, not farms) that stand in the middle of a > farmland [...] > > I do not have a strict opinion whether it should be residential=garden > or garden=residential, but as the first one sounds like a specialisation > of landuse=residential, I think that garden=residential should be better. Very good point, +1. I'm moving towards garden=residential on its own as the suggested way of flagging private residential gardens. Backwards compatibility and pretty rendering is maintained if we let the tag stand on its own. Semantically it's interesting: garden=residential defines some quality of garden-ness without declaring that it's for leisure use, or indeed for any other purpose. If you want to say more about an object you can add more tags, which makes it combinable with the existing schema. Does the object be used for leisure by the general map user? Then add leisure=garden. Otherwise don't. It seems extensible too, and it might ultimately provide a way forward for the defunct http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification#. At the very least we can steal the type values for use with this garden=* "refinement" key :) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 05.12.2013, 02:10 -0800 schrieb bulwersator: > It should not be changed, garden is garden - private or not. > Filtering out access=private to show only public ones is trivial. > I see also no arguments for changing meaning of tag used over 150k times. how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings etc. or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's place and only there? Some mappers use this tag making residential unvisible. cheers Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
+1, it seems quite obvious. On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:46:55 -0800 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote 2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch <osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de> how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings etc. or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's place and only there? I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be included. cheers, Martin ___ 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] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a): > 2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >> That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly >> changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at >> the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely >> different (although it was marked as a stub). > > > OK, I see what you mean (I was confused anyway because I remembered > also a different content ;-) ). Still the old version is IMHO not > useful either. On one hand it is an identical meaning to park. On the > other "decorative" and "structured" are highly subjective terms when > it comes to gardens. Are you aware of the two main lines of European > garden history? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden > > Reading your post I get the feeling that you think mainly about garden > as a French Garden. Still I'm missing the difference from > "leisure=garden" and "leisure=park", that's why I think it's not a bad > idea to change the meaning of leisure=garden also officially in OSM. I'm glad we're "on the same page" now ;-) I know the difference between the English and French style of gardening, but still in both cases I would say that the main feature is displaying the plants. The English garden could be pretty close to the park, but imho park is mainly grassy, open area (in the sense of not covered by dense vegetation). >> Yes, a lot of those areas are here in Czech Republic, that's why I >> brought this up, because we were discussing it in talk-cz and did not >> came to any definite conclusion - some think this is an inappropriate >> usage (like I do), some think it's ok. > > > you see. leisure=garden has for a long time not corresponded to the > wiki definition, that's probably why someone changed it. I'm still fuzzy on what is the wiki definition of garden. >> Anyway, the page of leisure=garden was recently significantly changed >> not only in the level of detail, but the meaning of this tag seems to be >> shifted by this added content. In current state I can't see any clear >> definition/description of what this tag should be used for. > > > but before neither ;-) I disagree, it was pretty simple to ask myself if the area is "Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes." - Botanical garden - yes, Japanese garden belonging to a tea-house - yes, lawn behind a family house - no, park is a bit grey area, but I wouldn't say that the area was covered with plants in a decorative manner, etc. >> As you said there is already a lot of leisure=garden areas, so the clear >> criteria for its usage should be resolved rather sooner then later, when >> the number grows even bigger. If anyone is able to give me a clear >> description of the meaning of this tag (that would include cut grass >> behind a family house), I'll shut up and use it according to that >> definition. > > > what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a garden. That's the thing, I'm not convinced that a lawn should be tagged as leisure=garden just because it's behind a fence around a family house. But I'm slowly changing my mind and a good subtagging could be the right way to go... the problem is that currently leisure=garden alone is used for a lot of different areas and it's becoming useless without better usage description on wiki. Regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Le 24/05/2011 10:39, Andrew Chadwick (lists) a écrit : On 24/05/11 00:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: [...] the landuse values describing built-up space should usually not be split below plot size. I'll read that as another vote against small landuse plots, but again: there's nothing in the wiki explaining this fact, and in fact landuse is regularly used for plot-sized areas of land. leisure=garden inside a landuse=residential area could be used for a private garden, maybe together with access=private. You can also use garden:type=residential with it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification -1, Residential private gardens are not for general user's leisure activities, and therefore no not belong in the leisure=* key. See my original post. I'm easy about whether I recommend landuse=residential residential=garden or just residential=garden within a landuse=residential polygon, or even garden=residential on its own within a landuse=residential polygon (sort of like the stalled proposal's wrongheaded :type key, but allowing the user to decide whether general leisure purposes fit as well. A leisure=garden would be strictly optional, and we should document the meaning of adding that). Which do people prefer I'd rather use the residential=garden as it may start a set of values to describe sub-polygons in a landuse residential. here http://osm.org/go/0CUOvbQ1-- is a suburb I would improve, there are grass areas, parkings between buildings. The fact of having a main landuse=residential ans sub residential=* (and, why not, residential=parking that is not a public parking, and in the same way we could have a industrial=parking that is only for the workers of the company or for visitors) would permit this improvement. -- FrViPofm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
Residential gardens in Nederland, as along as people refer to those as "My front garden" even when completely paved to support one tree-in-a-pot, are leisure things. From the air you commonly see rows of houses with strips of green in front and back, so it would make sense to tag the gardens different than the residential area. Access and use is mostly restricted, but that doesn't change the leisure function. You could discern types and qualities. I wouldnt go that far myself. When planning recreational routes, this would help me decide which areas to include. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op zo 14 jul. 2019 om 09:30 schreef Pee Wee : > > >> >> 1. Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the >> outcome? >> >> 2. If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden >> should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if >> so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are >> partially/completely paved?) >> >> >> >> >> (PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private >> front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case >> someone wants to. ) >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Peter (PeeWee32) >> > > The first part of question 1 was answered by Marc Zoutendijk on the Dutch > OSM forum. The mailing list can be searched so here are are results for > leisure=garden. > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=tagging%40openstreetmap.org&q=leisure%3Dgarden> > ___ > 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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 08:13, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Why would a private garden require a different key? Indeed. A private garden is often used for leisure and is a garden. One might perhaps argue for different tagging to describe a private garden used for growing vegetables and which the owner derives no pleasure from but is forced to grow the vegetables from poverty, but that is kind of unverifiable. leisure=garden works for me. It would be nice if access=private caused a slight difference in rendering, but that is an argument that should take place elsewhere. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
2010/5/25 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >> What's wrong with the current tags? >> >> leisure=park >> leisure=garden > > There is nothing wrong with that, but again - what's the landuse? > I mean - it's not a wild natural ground, the land is used for specific > purpose by people, so imho it should be tagged with landuse tag saying > "this land is used for leisure, recreation or something"... in a lot of > cases that would be larger area than what you would tag with > leisure=whatever. Just because something is tagged as a garden or park has no indication of use, most parks I know of have signs up about what they can't be used for, like golf practice, dogs off their leash and motorbikes, but they can be used for picnics, playing other sports and kids just horsing about, so landuse=leisure, leisure=park... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
I think we should tag private backyards with "surveillance=yes", even if surveillance is executed by a satellite et not a surveillance camera. :-) nounours77 Am 05.12.2013 um 18:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch > how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area > between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings etc. > or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's > place and only there? > > > I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the > landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be > included. > > cheers, > Martin > ___ > 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] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
Roy Wallace napsal(a): > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith wrote: >> >> leisure=garden >> garden=residential > > Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden. I don't see in what sense is this better - your own remark 'someone lives in the garden?' applies here as well, and it's even worse, because imho residential=garden suggest that this part of residential land is garden, but garden=residential suggests that this garden is for residential purposes. And the added bonus of abusing leisure=garden tag... Let me one more time explain what I think is wrong on this tag, so here is an example: Step one: Take a look at this area: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.008617,15.799091&spn=0.000565,0.001706&z=20 Step two: Which one of these lines better describes the area? A) Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes. B) Open, green area for recreation. Step three: Take a look where did I get those descriptions: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark Seems like recently the page about leisure=garden was significantly changed by copying a text from wikipedia, which makes an impression that almost any recreation ground can be called garden. Looking at the original wikipedia page, it lacks any clear definition of a garden. Second remark I have - is really definiton of OSM tag leisure=garden equivalent to the explanation from wikipedia? Regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green
> 1. If it is grass: tag it as grass > 2. if it is a tree: tag it as a tree > 3. if it is a hedge: tag it as a hedge > 4. if it is a park: tag it as a park > 5. if it is a flowerbed: tag it as a flowerbed > > and I now add: > > 6. if it is a garden: tag it as a garden > 4 & 6 (park & garden) are on a different conceptual level as the others. A park and garden can have grassy areas, trees, hedges, flowerbeds etc. That is why garden and park are "leisure" keys and the rest should be under the landcover tag. For me, the landuse of a garden or park is "recreation". m. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
:-) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 06/12/2013 12:32, nounours wrote: I think we should tag private backyards with "surveillance=yes", even if surveillance is executed by a satellite et not a surveillance camera. :-) nounours77 Am 05.12.2013 um 18:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch <mailto:osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de>> how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings etc. or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's place and only there? I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be included. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
I have tagged many planted centre pieces of roundabouts as leisure=garden, access=private in lack of better alternatives. On Sat, 13 Jul 2019, 02:18 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/07/19 21:00, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:23:01AM +0200, Pee Wee wrote: > >> Hi all > >> I would like your opinion on the next issue. > >> meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from > >> the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In > order > >> to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without > fee) > >> sometime additional tags like “access=private” and > >> “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no > >> additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not > accessible) > >> should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that > >> there are more objections > > For me a leisure=* in OSM has some public usability assumption. Mapping > > every little green strip as a leisure=garden i would consider a tagging > > abuse. > > Some private gardens that front the street are publicly visible, I see no > reason not to map them. > > The 'usability' in this instance is visible and, sometimes,scents. > > > ___ > 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] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/6 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > To the proposed solutions in this thread: > * highway=pedestrian, area=yes - It doesn't really make sense to me to > tag private fenced and _green_ areas by highway tag. sure, for green areas it isn't, for paved ones it IMO is. > * surface=grass, surface=lawn, surface=whatever - I don't like this > because what I really want to map is not that my neighbour has a lawn > behind his house, but the fact that there is a private "green" property add access=private? > - I think it makes no sense to try to map and tag every piece of these > areas like "this" is grass, "this" is a bed of carrot, "there" are > roses, "here" we have some bushes etc. why not? As long as people do want to do this and only tag what is there, I don't have a problem with it. > * leisure='garden' or leisure='park' - see above leisure=park is not the right choice, sure. But leisure=garden could IMO qualify. a) because it is at least in some areas common practise ;-) and b) the size of the garden is already determined by the size of the polygon. If you use this tag only for huge gardens of estates/castles it is more or less useless and hard to tell the difference from a park. Parks also have sometimes fences around them, limited access, no access, fee for access, castles / mansions and others inside them. Big gardens are basically parks! Gardens on the other hand can be completely different, from french barocque gardens to English gardens to zen gardens (not even green). All of them are usually much bigger then the usual detached house garden, and can therefore simply be differentiated automatically just by their size (e.g. mapnik can do this without any "additional processing" just by standard rules). For human readers of the map it is even easier. I therefore suggest to use leisure=garden and add subtags for the style (some might suit only bigger gardens): garden=Chinese garden=English garden=à_la_française (for French gardens) garden=rosarium (for rose gardens) garden=unclassified (suitable for many small private gardens) and maybe also subtags for the use: a) flower garden b) fruit and vegetable / kitchen garden (what tag could suit this? type?) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
I think we don't should tag something at a private (really private) ground in a residential (except the house, entrance and way to it). IMO we don't need any private things like swimmingpools, ways, trees, sandboxes or playgrounds at the backyard in the OSM database. Cheers, Masi Am 05.12.2013, 20:36 Uhr, schrieb bulwersator : +1, it seems quite obvious. On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:46:55 -0800 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote 2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch <osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de> how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings etc. or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's place and only there? I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be included. cheers, Martin ___ 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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:23:01AM +0200, Pee Wee wrote: > Hi all > I would like your opinion on the next issue. > meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from > the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order > to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee) > sometime additional tags like “access=private” and > “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no > additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible) > should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that > there are more objections For me a leisure=* in OSM has some public usability assumption. Mapping every little green strip as a leisure=garden i would consider a tagging abuse. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
On 12/07/19 21:00, Florian Lohoff wrote: On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:23:01AM +0200, Pee Wee wrote: Hi all I would like your opinion on the next issue. meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee) sometime additional tags like “access=private” and “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible) should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that there are more objections For me a leisure=* in OSM has some public usability assumption. Mapping every little green strip as a leisure=garden i would consider a tagging abuse. Some private gardens that front the street are publicly visible, I see no reason not to map them. The 'usability' in this instance is visible and, sometimes,scents. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
2015-08-17 18:50 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > Or landuse=flowerbed and possibly species=Mesembryanthemum crystallinum. > There is already leisure=garden. It (or [leisure=garden, gerden=flowerbed] or maybe leisure=flowerbed) would be far better than yet another too detailed landuse value. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 23/05/2011 12:15, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote: I'm suggesting that we remove the language on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden and I welcome your comments! This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) suggesting landuse=residential residential=garden as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: I agree with all this for not using leisure=garden. Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as residential=garden, without the landuse tag. Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then map individual gardens and houses etc within that. No need to use two tags when one will say just as much. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
> Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a > private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible > by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ? > No, we refine this with additional tags. > This method can be applied to private gardens as well. > > regards > m > > Forgot to mention that since people started to map whole residential area's <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KI0>with leisure=garden even small completely paved strips in front of a houses are tagged. To me this is no garden an no leisure either. I think the current definition needs a change in order to include or exclude these paved area's (which ever the community wants). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
sent from a phone > On 12. Jul 2019, at 07:23, Pee Wee wrote: > > It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010 > when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden > description that refers to private gardens Frankly, I believe it is too late to question 2010 tagging decisions. Residential is by far the most used garden type qualifier: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/garden:type#values Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
This is, at least in part, a difference between different dialects of English. Your definition A below (place where plants are grown in a structured and decorative manner) would be classified in both Britain and the USA as a "flower garden". Both places would also use the term "vegetable garden" or "kitchen garden" to mean a place where plants are grown for food. A place where plants are grown for scientific purposes would be described in both places as a "botanical garden". Definition B, "open, green area for recreation", is used in British English but not in American English. Americans call that a "yard", not a "garden". ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited) >From :mailto:xific...@gmail.com Date :Fri May 14 10:42:56 America/Chicago 2010 Roy Wallace napsal(a): > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith wrote: >> >> leisure=garden >> garden=residential > > Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden. I don't see in what sense is this better - your own remark 'someone lives in the garden?' applies here as well, and it's even worse, because imho residential=garden suggest that this part of residential land is garden, but garden=residential suggests that this garden is for residential purposes. And the added bonus of abusing leisure=garden tag... Let me one more time explain what I think is wrong on this tag, so here is an example: Step one: Take a look at this area: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.008617,15.799091&spn=0.000565,0.001706&z=20 Step two: Which one of these lines better describes the area? A) Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes. B) Open, green area for recreation. Step three: Take a look where did I get those descriptions: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark Seems like recently the page about leisure=garden was significantly changed by copying a text from wikipedia, which makes an impression that almost any recreation ground can be called garden. Looking at the original wikipedia page, it lacks any clear definition of a garden. Second remark I have - is really definiton of OSM tag leisure=garden equivalent to the explanation from wikipedia? Regards, Petr Morávek -- 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
[Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
I'm suggesting that we remove the language on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden and I welcome your comments! This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) suggesting landuse=residential residential=garden as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: 1. Supporting A) Residential gardens are of little interest for the general map data consumer's leisure activities. Therefore they should not be tagged using the leisure=* namespace for reasons of backwards compatibility (see 3 below), consistent rendering (see 3 also), and descriptive soundness (see 2 and 4). 2. Supporting B) They are however a form of land use, so the landuse=* tag seems appropriate. Specifically, they're a kind of residential landuse, so it makes sense to refine a use of landuse=residential. So the combination in B) seems appropriate. 3. Supporting A and B) Use of leisure=garden means that renderers cannot distinguish between private residential gardens and public or fee-private leisure space gardens without deploying extra rules. It would be more sensible and backwards compatible to do something else, particularly since trac ticket 3302 doesn't show any signs of being closed any time soon. Rendering residential gardens in the same colours as surrounding residential landuse that -isn't- gardens both looks prettier when the renderer doesn't do anything special to support residential gardens, and makes for a more consistent-looking map (since many users don't care two hoots about tagging residential gardens, but their neighbours do). 4. Supporting B) The drill-down pattern used here adds an additional layer of meaning to areas of residential landuse. What I've been calling "iterative refinement" to date. 5. Supporting B, but full disclosure...) There are 756 uses of residential=garden in the wiki at present, http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/residential=garden , but I've added possibly the majority of those myself by changing a great many local objects using the erroneous tagging scheme to the scheme I want. There may have been ~100 uses before, which is why I'm listing it near-last. 6. Supporting A and partly B) General sanity-check nod on #osm. See the Talk:Tag:leisure=garden page in the wiki. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Sounds good to me. Polyglot 2011/5/23 Andrew Chadwick (lists) > I'm suggesting that we remove the language on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends > leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page > entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden > and I welcome your comments! > > This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and > second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) > suggesting > > landuse=residential >residential=garden > > as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: > > 1. Supporting A) Residential gardens are of little interest for the > general map data consumer's leisure activities. Therefore they should > not be tagged using the leisure=* namespace for reasons of backwards > compatibility (see 3 below), consistent rendering (see 3 also), and > descriptive soundness (see 2 and 4). > > 2. Supporting B) They are however a form of land use, so the landuse=* > tag seems appropriate. Specifically, they're a kind of residential > landuse, so it makes sense to refine a use of landuse=residential. So > the combination in B) seems appropriate. > > 3. Supporting A and B) Use of leisure=garden means that renderers cannot > distinguish between private residential gardens and public or > fee-private leisure space gardens without deploying extra rules. It > would be more sensible and backwards compatible to do something else, > particularly since trac ticket 3302 doesn't show any signs of being > closed any time soon. Rendering residential gardens in the same colours > as surrounding residential landuse that -isn't- gardens both looks > prettier when the renderer doesn't do anything special to support > residential gardens, and makes for a more consistent-looking map (since > many users don't care two hoots about tagging residential gardens, but > their neighbours do). > > 4. Supporting B) The drill-down pattern used here adds an additional > layer of meaning to areas of residential landuse. What I've been calling > "iterative refinement" to date. > > 5. Supporting B, but full disclosure...) There are 756 uses of > residential=garden in the wiki at present, > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/residential=garden , but I've added > possibly the majority of those myself by changing a great many local > objects using the erroneous tagging scheme to the scheme I want. There > may have been ~100 uses before, which is why I'm listing it near-last. > > 6. Supporting A and partly B) General sanity-check nod on #osm. See the > Talk:Tag:leisure=garden page in the wiki. > > -- > Andrew Chadwick > > ___ > 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] war_memorial
On 05-Oct-17 01:58 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks everyone for your thoughts re arboretums Why I brought this up - had a look at the historic=monument tag yesterday morning, which lead me to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CheckTheMonuments & http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html. That showed 4 monuments in my general area, 2 of which should apparently be memorials, 1 I'm not sure about & this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.00759/153.38376. The "Regional Arboretum" is shown as a monument &, by the conversations here, almost certainly shouldn't be (maybe it should be a Memorial? - will have to get up there & check it out on the ground); while the "ADF Grove" is, almost certainly correctly, a Memorial. Now, if the Regional Arboretum isn't actually marked as being a memorial to anybody / thing, & therefore not a memorial, how should it then appear in OSM? The Botanic Gardens as a whole are shown as landuse=recreation_ground; leisure=park. From a Google satellite shot https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0070891,153.3834806,174m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en <https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0070891,153.3834806,174m/data=%213m1%211e3?hl=en>, the Regional Arboretum is only an open group of trees, so how should it be mapped? It's definitely not intended for forestry / logging purposes, so it's not landuse=forest It's hardly a forest, so not natural=wood Doesn't produce anything so not landuse=orchard Leisure=garden? Garden brings to mind flowers & bushes, not trees, but I guess it may still apply? Sydney Royal Botanic Garden is tagged as leisure=garden garden:type=botanical Possibly leisure=garden garden:type=arboretum?? I think this is the best solution I have - not documented and no actual existence in the data base. Way 21370319 (Nottingham Arboretum) is tagged as name=Arboretum leisure=park this looks wrong to me .. the name may just be a description. The Australian Canberra arboretum is tagged as tourist=attraction A quick look has arboretums tagged as forest (!), conservation, grass (!), leisure=nature_reserve and probably other things. Will be interesting to see where this goes. I have mapped some 'local' memorials/monuments ... including one to a cat (Trim - Matthew Flinders cat), one to the WW1 Australian horses. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
> you are talking about "abusing" a tag, and then citing > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden where the > third sentence is: "The most common form is known as a residential > garden." That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely different (although it was marked as a stub). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dgarden&oldid=437641 > You can argue here as much as you like but I know many areas where > residential gardens are already tagged with leisure=garden so there is > not much to do (If you don't want to check all 27550 current uses of > leisure=garden (tagwatch)). Yes, a lot of those areas are here in Czech Republic, that's why I brought this up, because we were discussing it in talk-cz and did not came to any definite conclusion - some think this is an inappropriate usage (like I do), some think it's ok. Anyway, the page of leisure=garden was recently significantly changed not only in the level of detail, but the meaning of this tag seems to be shifted by this added content. In current state I can't see any clear definition/description of what this tag should be used for. As you said there is already a lot of leisure=garden areas, so the clear criteria for its usage should be resolved rather sooner then later, when the number grows even bigger. If anyone is able to give me a clear description of the meaning of this tag (that would include cut grass behind a family house), I'll shut up and use it according to that definition. But right now, all I know is that in last few weeks the OSM wiki page changed its description from quite a clear and narrow meaning to a vague description of general "green" areas. Regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
On 13/07/19 20:44, Florian Lohoff wrote: The same reason i do not map my kitchen sink as a natural=water/water=pond Its not for the public leisure. I don't know if the issue here is public leisure (in this case it's maybe better to change the key "leisure" with something else), but I see some many pros in having private garden represented and tagged, e.g. being able to map the quantity of green areas in a city (for climate change, CO2 emission models, urban heat, ...) and differentiate public and private green areas contribution. Ale ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Arboretum - how to tag?
On 11/10/18 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 10. Oct 2018, at 15:10, Tobias Zwick <mailto:o...@westnordost.de>> wrote: Well, an Arboretum is a "botanical tree garden", is it not? So why not leisure=garden (+ maybe additional tags, see wiki article)? if it is seen as garden, I would use garden:type=arboretum From actual usage, the only tag in use is arboretum=yes 38 times https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/arboretum The use of that is confined to a small area. There is also use of landuse=arboretum. So I might just use both; landuse=arboretum leisure=garden garden=arboretum https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/14 John Smith : >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden > > I don't really see what the big deal is, leisure=garden can mean a lot > of different things to a lot of different people, so it needs to be > sub-tagged, +1 and one possible way would be how I suggested: > leisure=garden +1 > then > > garden=english_garden|french_garden|japanese_garden|water_garden|horticulture|lawn -1, this seems pretty inconsequential ;-). If you go for structuring garden tagging, you cannot mix landcover (lawn), typology (english / french) and others. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > And the added bonus of abusing leisure=garden tag... Let me one more > time explain what I think is wrong on this tag, so here is an example: > Step two: Which one of these lines better describes the area? > A) Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and > structured manner or for scientific purposes. > B) Open, green area for recreation. > Step three: Take a look where did I get those descriptions: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark you are talking about "abusing" a tag, and then citing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden where the third sentence is: "The most common form is known as a residential garden." Most of the description actually is about residential gardens and the functions are described like this: "A garden can have aesthetic, functional, and recreational uses: * Cooperation with nature * Observation of nature * Relaxation * Growing useful produce " You can argue here as much as you like but I know many areas where residential gardens are already tagged with leisure=garden so there is not much to do (If you don't want to check all 27550 current uses of leisure=garden (tagwatch)). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
sent from a phone > Am 18.08.2015 um 10:51 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > There is already leisure=garden. It (or [leisure=garden, gerden=flowerbed] or > maybe leisure=flowerbed) > would be far better than yet another too detailed landuse value. there are also garden:type and garden:style, but they are for gardens, a flowerbed may also occur in different context (e.g. in the public space along streets or on squares). I would not recommend garden=flowerbed as a general tag for flowerbeds for this reason. Maybe what was once suggested as landuse=grass (green on traffic separations, traffic islands etc.) could become landuse=street_decoration and could be subtagged as flowerbed then. On the other hand this would still interfere with landuse=highway/road What about amenity=flowerbed? cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
2011/5/23 Tobias Knerr : > This implies that the landuse=residential tag would be used on > smale-scale structures, which I believe should not be done. landuses are > large-scale areas. When you create a landuse polygon for an individual > building or garden, you are doing something wrong, imo. +1, the landuse values describing built-up space should usually not be split below plot size. leisure=garden inside a landuse=residential area could be used for a private garden, maybe together with access=private. You can also use garden:type=residential with it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Le 23/05/2011 14:17, Craig Wallace a écrit : On 23/05/2011 12:15, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote: I'm suggesting that we remove the language on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden and I welcome your comments! This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) suggesting landuse=residential residential=garden as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: I agree with all this for not using leisure=garden. Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as residential=garden, without the landuse tag. Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then map individual gardens and houses etc within that. No need to use two tags when one will say just as much. Hum ! Interesting. I imagine we could map a large area with a landuse=residential, and inside, in micromapping, polygons with residential=garden. It would avoid having several polygons ovelapping with landuse tags, or a multipolygon with thousand inner members producing errors in postGIS when several inners are juxtaposed. So we can easily combine different mapping level. Mapnik would give different renderings, with transparency. A way that seems good to explore... -- FrViPofm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
Am Freitag, den 06.12.2013, 15:20 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > Am 06/dic/2013 um 13:39 schrieb cracklinrain : > > > > Well, I would say a stone garden without plants is probably still a > > garden. But an area made of concrete is still a (small) yard or else. If > > it's too strange it should be tagged as artwork maybe. > > > > But by definition it seems that the aspect of existing plants is important. > > > > it will be decided by the mapper on occasion. > I have seen some quite unusual gardens with very few plants, but generally > you'd expect them in a garden (something could be a garden and a piece of art > or design at the same time). Also zen gardens which AFAIK are mostly pebbles > rather than lawn, will still have some tree (or bonsaii tree). The question remains how to tag: one area of ~50-100 private gardens as leisure=garden including the whole residential area whith buildings etc. or garden by garden. cheers, Osmonav ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse for arboretum
On 11/10/10 7:28 PM, John Smith wrote: On 11 November 2010 08:27, Craig Wallace wrote: Wouldn't it be covered by leisure=garden? ie "Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes." Its just it specifically focuses on trees, as opposed to flowers or other plants. That seems wrong, they aren't for leisure so much as a preserve to make sure species of trees will survive at least in one place... arboretums can be for conservation, for education and for research. wikipedia articles are not always helpful, but the article on arboretums is pretty decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum perhaps: landuse=botanical_garden collection=arboretum|fruticetum|viticetum|pinetum|... the distinction from leisure=garden would be that botanical_gardens are more oriented towards scientific/educational usage rather than leisure. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
I understand but numbers don't always say much. A great part of this number is caused by an (afaik undocumentend and highly arbitrary) import in the city of Tilburg <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KFt> Cheers Peter Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 08:18 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > On 12. Jul 2019, at 07:23, Pee Wee wrote: > > It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010 > when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden > description that refers to private gardens > > > > Frankly, I believe it is too late to question 2010 tagging decisions. > Residential is by far the most used garden type qualifier: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/garden:type#values > > Cheers Martin > ___ > 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] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden
sent from a phone > On 28. May 2018, at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Currently garden on wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden is described as > not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least planned. > > Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing more > than standard lawns (like at > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg > ) leisure=garden is used for different kind of gardens, there is a sub categorization available with garden:style and garden:type most garden:types are residential: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/garden:type#values For this kind of garden my criterion would be that it belongs to a residence/dwelling. I would not insist that the garden structure is planned (but generally the fact that there is a space dedicated as a garden, will be planned). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?
2017-01-11 22:40 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > And I disagree with all of them being leisure=garden. > The green patches between a road and a footway are not 'leisure' things .. > they are 'safety' things .. particularly beside busy roads. > I believe you are making this too "philosophical". Should we tag the private residential garden of someone who doesn't use it in his leisure time differently from the garden of someone who uses it? Green patches along a road can be there for decorative reasons and or for safety reasons, one doesn't exclude the other. There are areas around the world where people do sit down aside a road, e.g. there are flower beds, benches, etc. This said, I don't think we should tag the green areas along roads as gardens, unless there is a particular exception (garden themed areas). > > If these same areas were covered with concrete .. would you still think of > them as 'leisure'? In other words .. are you associating the 'cover' with > the 'use' of these areas? > there is also a connection between cover and use, but in the first place concrete areas are unlikely "these same areas" as the grass areas with just a different cover. The only common property is the position along the road. > Approach =the problem from 2 different ways of thinking - > > What is the 'cover' ... landcover ? > > and then > > What is the 'use' ... landuse? > > Once you divide those 2 things up it makes it clearer what is there. > +1, this is what I am advocating for many years: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses ... objects vs attributes
Am 24/lug/2013 um 20:42 schrieb Peter Wendorff : > natural=water, leisure=fishing (I think that was your example) > natural=water, leisure=swimming > natural=water|heath|grassland|..., leisure=nature_reserve > natural=water, leisure=wildlife_hide on a side note some of the values above like swimming are currently under the sport key, not leisure. Typical values for leisure are pitch, track, stadium, marina, playground, park, garden... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Am 23.05.2011 14:57, schrieb Vincent Pottier: > Le 23/05/2011 14:17, Craig Wallace a écrit : >> On 23/05/2011 12:15, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote: >>> I'm suggesting that we remove the language on >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends >>> leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page >>> entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden >>> and I welcome your comments! >>> >>> This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and >>> second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) >>> suggesting >>> >>> landuse=residential >>> residential=garden >>> >>> as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: >> >> I agree with all this for not using leisure=garden. >> >> Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as >> residential=garden, without the landuse tag. >> Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then >> map individual gardens and houses etc within that. >> >> No need to use two tags when one will say just as much. > Hum ! Interesting. > > I imagine we could map a large area with a landuse=residential, and > inside, in micromapping, polygons with residential=garden. > It would avoid having several polygons ovelapping with landuse tags, or > a multipolygon with thousand inner members producing errors in postGIS > when several inners are juxtaposed. > > So we can easily combine different mapping level. > > Mapnik would give different renderings, with transparency. > > A way that seems good to explore... +1 at least for many landuses this might work. For farmland this will solve mircomapping of fields and keep the landuse as a bigger area. Even residential=road/street would be possible. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
On 13.07.2019 09:35, Volker Schmidt wrote: I have tagged many planted centre pieces of roundabouts as leisure=garden, access=private in lack of better alternatives. Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout? If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no be more appropriate? tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
Am 05.12.2013 18:46, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the > landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be > included. This in combination with garden:type and garden:style does make sense. But until now I did not see a garden correctly mapped excluding the main building. Some building=hut maybe included - in my opinion this does not matter. At Hamburg for example there are gardens concluded to one area. So this does not make it possible to have a distiction between the gardens. So there is no further style etc applicable. Actually usually gardens are distinct from each other. How will you map this? I mean leisure=garden is not like landuse covering hundreds of gardens (with different style). The only valueable solution in context with barrier=fance are multipolygons... I assume that too few mappers are able to do so. All the other solutions might get really messy/chaotic. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
2013/12/5 cracklinrain > Some building=hut maybe included - in my opinion this does not > matter. > if it's in the garden, why not. > > Actually usually gardens are distinct from each other. How will you map > this? I mean leisure=garden is not like landuse covering hundreds of > gardens (with different style). > currently it doesn't look like a lot of mappers have specialized in mapping gardens, or are going to add additional descriptive tags further than the actually in use garden:type and garden:style, but of course if interest in this topic grows we'll probably get also more tags. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/15 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > That's the thing, I'm not convinced that a lawn should be tagged as > leisure=garden just because it's behind a fence around a family house. To me it isn't the lawn that makes the garden, but the fact that the garden can be viewed as a relaxation area adjoining the home outside. > But I'm slowly changing my mind and a good subtagging could be the right > way to go... the problem is that currently leisure=garden alone is used > for a lot of different areas and it's becoming useless without better > usage description on wiki. highway=road is equally useless, but it's used as a place marker until someone adds additional information, you need to think of OSM as an evolutionary process going from nothing to something approaching a complete map... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a): > 2010/5/6 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >> To the proposed solutions in this thread: >> * highway=pedestrian, area=yes - It doesn't really make sense to me to >> tag private fenced and _green_ areas by highway tag. > > > sure, for green areas it isn't, for paved ones it IMO is. Yeah, but as the thread says - we are talking about the green ones ;-) > >> * surface=grass, surface=lawn, surface=whatever - I don't like this >> because what I really want to map is not that my neighbour has a lawn >> behind his house, but the fact that there is a private "green" property > > > add access=private? You missed the point - I don't want to add the information about the surface, I just want to say that this area is a backyard/garden around family house. >> - I think it makes no sense to try to map and tag every piece of these >> areas like "this" is grass, "this" is a bed of carrot, "there" are >> roses, "here" we have some bushes etc. > > > why not? As long as people do want to do this and only tag what is > there, I don't have a problem with it. Well, the first problem is that the surface may change during quite a short period of time, so it doesn't really make much sense to try to map it all and the idea of keeping that data up to date is crazy. Second problem is that, personally when I look at the map, I would like to know that "here" behind the fence is grass, maybe some plants or trees, but I really don't care if it is a bed of carrot, roses, or tomatos... or it's only plain grass. >> * leisure='garden' or leisure='park' - see above > > > leisure=park is not the right choice, sure. But leisure=garden could > IMO qualify. a) because it is at least in some areas common practise > ;-) and b) the size of the garden is already determined by the size of > the polygon. > > If you use this tag only for huge gardens of estates/castles it is > more or less useless and hard to tell the difference from a park. > Parks also have sometimes fences around them, limited access, no > access, fee for access, castles / mansions and others inside them. Big > gardens are basically parks! > > Gardens on the other hand can be completely different, from french > barocque gardens to English gardens to zen gardens (not even green). > All of them are usually much bigger then the usual detached house > garden, and can therefore simply be differentiated automatically just > by their size (e.g. mapnik can do this without any "additional > processing" just by standard rules). For human readers of the map it > is even easier. I would like to see a difference in tagging the grassy area with small basin (I wouldn't call this garden and neither would anyone who follows description on OSM wiki) and "real" garden, both can be the same size. Furthermore, it's not really true that you can with certainty differentiate large gardens from a family house backyard, because it's common practice to tag the whole block of these properties together with leisure='garden', so that a lot of small "gardens" is joined into one polygon. Best regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Greenery adjacent to roads
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:37 PM, wrote: > How might I go about tagging the often quite extensive green stretches of > land to the side of larger roads here in Abu Dhabi (and indeed in many parts > of the world)? Sometimes this is just grass (in which case landuse=grass > kind of makes sense) but often this is a mixture of grass, trees and > decorative plants in varying proportions. In many cases it kind of looks > like a park, but no-one in their right mind would actually try to use it as > such (and indeed, in central reservations they'd have to be suicidal to > try). > > One idea might be: > leisure=garden or leisure=park combined with access=no > but this seems a bit like tag gymnastics to me. This is a perennial question. Limitations with existing responses: surface=grass: yes, but this is missing the point. That's like describing a building as surface=brick. Would we use a different tag for the brief sections that are garden, or tan bark, or concrete or whatever? landuse=grass: sounds very much like a placeholder. "I'm not sure what this land is used for, it's used for...grass". leisure=garden: sure, it looks like a garden, but it's not intended for anyone to visit. The right tag would involve a concept like "roadside vegetation", "nature strip", "council-maintained lawn" or something similar. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/15 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >> but before neither ;-) > > I disagree, it was pretty simple to ask myself if the area is "Place > where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured > manner or for scientific purposes." - Botanical garden - yes, Japanese > garden belonging to a tea-house - yes, lawn behind a family house - no, OK, it was good to tell: this is somehow cared for green grown either for decorative or scientific purposes, but it was not good enough if you care for the difference between a japanese garden, a botanical garden, the rose garden of a castle, some private garden with flowers and other plants grown in a decorative and structured way, but not if they were growing herbs or vegetables (but yes again if they were growing stuff with scientific interest),... ;-) > But I'm slowly changing my mind and a good subtagging could be the right > way to go... the problem is that currently leisure=garden alone is used > for a lot of different areas and it's becoming useless without better > usage description on wiki. +1, I agree, some subtags would be usefull. Probably some of them could be applicable to other tags as well (leisure=park, landuse=orchard, ...) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
IMHO the whole area may be a residential area, and residential includes residential highways, houses, small parks and much more, But I wouldn't say the whole area is a garden, so a garden should only be tagged where there is a garden or mainly a garden. In addition a single garden is a single garden, while a residential area may consists of several blocks. Two gardens are two gardens and should be mapped as two objects in OSM, I think. regards Peter Am 07.12.2013 00:01, schrieb Wolfgang Hinsch: > Am Freitag, den 06.12.2013, 15:20 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> >>> Am 06/dic/2013 um 13:39 schrieb cracklinrain : >>> >>> Well, I would say a stone garden without plants is probably still a >>> garden. But an area made of concrete is still a (small) yard or else. If >>> it's too strange it should be tagged as artwork maybe. >>> >>> But by definition it seems that the aspect of existing plants is important. >> >> >> >> it will be decided by the mapper on occasion. >> I have seen some quite unusual gardens with very few plants, but generally >> you'd expect them in a garden (something could be a garden and a piece of >> art or design at the same time). Also zen gardens which AFAIK are mostly >> pebbles rather than lawn, will still have some tree (or bonsaii tree). > > The question remains how to tag: one area of ~50-100 private gardens as > leisure=garden including the whole residential area whith buildings etc. > or garden by garden. > > cheers, Osmonav > > > ___ > 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] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On 15 May 2010 05:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > OK, I see what you mean (I was confused anyway because I remembered > also a different content ;-) ). Still the old version is IMHO not > useful either. On one hand it is an identical meaning to park. On the > other "decorative" and "structured" are highly subjective terms when > it comes to gardens. Are you aware of the two main lines of European > garden history? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden I don't really see what the big deal is, leisure=garden can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, so it needs to be sub-tagged, and one possible way would be how I suggested: leisure=garden then garden=english_garden|french_garden|japanese_garden|water_garden|horticulture|lawn you could also expand horticulture to cover things if there is a predomonite type of gardening occurring, eg horticulture=flowers|vegetables ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses ... objects vs attributes
Hi Martin, Am 24.07.2013 23:55, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > Am 24/lug/2013 um 20:42 schrieb Peter Wendorff : > >> natural=water, leisure=fishing (I think that was your example) >> natural=water, leisure=swimming >> natural=water|heath|grassland|..., leisure=nature_reserve >> natural=water, leisure=wildlife_hide > > > on a side note some of the values above like swimming are currently under the > sport key, not leisure. > Typical values for leisure are pitch, track, stadium, marina, playground, > park, garden... well, a pool that allows swimming, but is not useful for competitive swimming I would count as sports IMHO would better be leisure=swimming than sport=swimming, but I may be wrong here. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=events
When I think of leisure=events, I think of facilities (that are not convention centers) where you can hold social and corporate events such as company parties, wedding receptions, small musical concerts, product launchings and the like. Here in my country there are plenty of such facilities and I'm sure other countries do have them. Some examples: The Glass Garden - http://www.theglassgarden.com.ph/ Fernwood Garden - http://fernwoodgarden.com/ NBC Tent - https://www.facebook.com/pages/NBC-TENT/249917111705073 Filinvest Tent - http://www.filinvesttent.com/ Oasis Manila - https://www.facebook.com/TheOasisManila I admit that I have no idea how to tag these places. I was thinking something like amenity=events_venue. Are these facilities also included in your proposed tag? On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Antônio Marcos wrote: > I have created this proposal some time ago for a new tag called > leisure=events (originally landuse=events), which should describe areas > reserved for events in a city or in a place (more info at the proposal page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents). Does > anybody have more opinions and suggestions on this, please? > > ___ > 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] war_memorial
Thanks everyone for your thoughts re arboretums Why I brought this up - had a look at the historic=monument tag yesterday morning, which lead me to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CheckTheMonuments & http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html. That showed 4 monuments in my general area, 2 of which should apparently be memorials, 1 I'm not sure about & this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.00759/153.38376. The "Regional Arboretum" is shown as a monument &, by the conversations here, almost certainly shouldn't be (maybe it should be a Memorial? - will have to get up there & check it out on the ground); while the "ADF Grove" is, almost certainly correctly, a Memorial. Now, if the Regional Arboretum isn't actually marked as being a memorial to anybody / thing, & therefore not a memorial, how should it then appear in OSM? The Botanic Gardens as a whole are shown as landuse=recreation_ground; leisure=park. From a Google satellite shot https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0070891,153.3834806,174m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en, the Regional Arboretum is only an open group of trees, so how should it be mapped? It's definitely not intended for forestry / logging purposes, so it's not landuse=forest It's hardly a forest, so not natural=wood Doesn't produce anything so not landuse=orchard Leisure=garden? Garden brings to mind flowers & bushes, not trees, but I guess it may still apply? On 5 October 2017 at 09:21, Neil Matthews wrote: > Might be a bit too finegrained for some memorial sites, e.g. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Memorial_Arboretum > > Neil > I did have a look at the NMA: http://www.thenma.org.uk, & it's shown http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.72783/-1.73066 as leisure=park, with lot's of gardens & memorials spread throughout it, so maybe leisure=garden is correct? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] beer_garden
It appears many of us (UK only?) have been misinterpreting the meaning of biergarten to represent outdoor seating areas of pubs. To rectify I'm changing the value to 'beer_garden' for the ones in my area when specific areas are mapped as a polygon, but there seems a lack of agreement on the key: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=beer_garden#values Even though there's only five, I prefer 'leisure' as it ties in with 'leisure=garden' (389000) Amenity seems incorrect as the garden is a sub-feature of amenity=pub. Similarly for 'landuse' Suggestions? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/13 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > By themselves not, but they are within the residential land and this > tagging proposal follows the scheme like highway=service + service=whatever. > I admit, it's not the best solution, but it is already a proposed > scheme. I don't have a better solution... maybe it would be better to > add a new leisure value, I'm opened to reasonable suggestions. I have > personally no idea what the proper english word could be. leisure=garden garden=residential ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
2010/5/18 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
>> Thanks for putting this up. I would actually try to reduce some of it
>> to the necessary:
>> "The most common form of garden, located in proximity to a residence,
>> usually private access only. The main purpose is usually relaxation
>> activities. " - I would delete "The main purpose is usually relaxation
>> activities. " because it restricts without benefit.
>
> By this I have tried to incorporate the idea that in case of residential
> garden it doesn't really matter if you have a nice garden in the french
> style or a plain lawn.
probably you should write this there,
>> Are there any ideas how to solve the problem that this more or less
>> obsoletes leisure=park? Shall we allow the values garden:type and
>> garden:style for parks as well? This could be done by simply avoiding
>> the prefix ("type" and "style" without the garden).
>
> I have thought about that, but...
> 1) We need the prefix, so it is clear type/style of what we are tagging.
as long as you keep one object for one "thing" you don't need them. It
is clear that you describe the garden when "type" is attached to a
garden object. You don't prefix garden:name either.
> 2) It is true that leisure=park is somewhat similar to the garden, but I
> still consider a park as more or less grassy area with fewer plants, or
> at least smaller variety. And personally I don't know any area where I
> would hesitate if I should tag it as a park or garden - usually most of
> the local folks call it one way or the other and the area often has one
> of the words in its name.
One example would be the "English Garden" you can find in many cities,
and I would usually consider it a park but it fits as well 100% into
the garden description.
> 3) This could in theory incorporate many of other tags like
> landuse=allotments,vineyard,orchard etc., but I guess these are meant
> for rather large scale,
I also thought of them and found that they are really different, so
these additional tags won't fit. Independant of their size.
> and I think they should stay where they are (landuse key).
+1, they're landuses.
> I think leisure=garden should be located exclusively in
> landuse=recreation_ground, or residential (for garden:type=residential),
> maybe even landuse=allotments if anyone wants to tag each property
> separately.
? No, it is useful for castles and other representational gardens as
well. Why would you restrict it to residencial areas? I mean, at least
that would be quite a change from the current definition.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?
As I wrote on the Dutch forum, I see at least some leisure=park, leisure=garden, natural=grassfield, natural=water+water=pond on your photos. You loose a lot of information if you map them all with village_green. IMHO, a "village_green" outside the UK is a park, garden or recreation_ground in OSM terminology. it does not apply to the small patches of "green" on the sides of roads or playground. They deserve another tag. I think every place in the world should ideally belong to - a landuse - a landcover polygon additionally you can add leisure (park, garden, etc) or amenity (pub, playground, etc.) on top of them. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Marc Zoutendijk wrote: > > Op 10 jan. 2017, om 05:14 heeft Marc Gemis het > volgende geschreven: > > I thought the original question was broader than just the patches of > green next to the road. I also want to know how to map those green > patches when they are not part of roundabouts, or are located between > sidewalk and road (where cars drive). > > > To help us focus on what type of “green” I’m (and others) are thinking of, I > have prepared a photo-collage: > > https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/guN1x7PBfZfP1ZR > > At the core of all this we we see: > > - areas of any size but more often small > - a variety of grass, plants, flowers and trees in any number and > combination > - located mostly inside urban areas > - there is not normally an entrance to the area but sometime a footpath > divides it > > Tagging this with leisure=garden covers all situations quiet well, save for > the “entrance” part. > One other idea was to add the operator=* tag. E.g. operator=municipality. > > One of the other possibilities (proposed in the Dutch Forum) to tackle this > problem, is to redifine village_green to mean something different in The > Netherlands then in the UK. Such local meaning of tags we also see for > highway tagging. > > Marc Zoutendijk > > > > > ___ > 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] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?
And I disagree with all of them being leisure=garden. The green patches between a road and a footway are not 'leisure' things .. they are 'safety' things .. particularly beside busy roads. If these same areas were covered with concrete .. would you still think of them as 'leisure'? In other words .. are you associating the 'cover' with the 'use' of these areas? Approach =the problem from 2 different ways of thinking - What is the 'cover' ... landcover ? and then What is the 'use' ... landuse? Once you divide those 2 things up it makes it clearer what is there. On 11-Jan-17 10:22 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: @Marc Zoutendijk thanks for the photos. I agree with all of them as leisure=garden, except for the bottom right one. From the photo it is not clear whether this is spontaneous vegetation or planted vegetation. Only n the latter case I would accept the garden concept On 11 January 2017 at 10:56, Marc Zoutendijk <mailto:marczoutend...@mac.com>> wrote: Op 10 jan. 2017, om 05:14 heeft Marc Gemis mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven: I thought the original question was broader than just the patches of green next to the road. I also want to know how to map those green patches when they are not part of roundabouts, or are located between sidewalk and road (where cars drive). To help us focus on what type of “green” I’m (and others) are thinking of, I have prepared a photo-collage: https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/guN1x7PBfZfP1ZR <https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/guN1x7PBfZfP1ZR> At the core of all this we we see: - areas of any size but more often small - a variety of grass, plants, flowers and trees in any number and combination - located mostly inside urban areas - there is not normally an entrance to the area but sometime a footpath divides it Tagging this with leisure=garden covers all situations quiet well, save for the “entrance” part. One other idea was to add the operator=* tag. E.g. operator=municipality. One of the other possibilities (proposed in the Dutch Forum) to tackle this problem, is to redifine village_green to mean something different in The Netherlands then in the UK. Such local meaning of tags we also see for highway tagging. Marc Zoutendijk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
John Smith napsal(a): > 2010/5/23 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >>> In Australia at least, recreation grounds are usually pretty specific >>> areas used for things like horse sports. >> >> Even though Wikipedia says recreation isn't completely the same as > > recreation ground and recreation are 2 different things, just like a > park and a soccer field are 2 different things even if you can play > soccer in a park. Thanks, I did not know those two words togetger had a specific meaning. Then, shouldn't this be under leisure key? Like sports_centre, golf_course, etc.? >> Anyway, what do you think is an appropriate landuse value for areas like >> public gardens and parks? By the way, you can do for example jogging in > > What's wrong with the current tags? > > leisure=park > leisure=garden There is nothing wrong with that, but again - what's the landuse? I mean - it's not a wild natural ground, the land is used for specific purpose by people, so imho it should be tagged with landuse tag saying "this land is used for leisure, recreation or something"... in a lot of cases that would be larger area than what you would tag with leisure=whatever. It's the same like shop=supermarket - there is nothing wrong with that, but the land under it (and most likely a bit around it) should be tagged landuse=retail. Regards, Petr Morávek <> signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith wrote: > > leisure=garden > garden=residential Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
2013/12/7 Peter Wendorff > IMHO the whole area may be a residential area, and residential includes > residential highways, houses, small parks and much more, > But I wouldn't say the whole area is a garden, so a garden should only > be tagged where there is a garden or mainly a garden. > In addition a single garden is a single garden, while a residential area > may consists of several blocks. > Two gardens are two gardens and should be mapped as two objects in OSM, > I think. > +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
Am 07.12.2013 00:11, schrieb Peter Wendorff: > IMHO the whole area may be a residential area, and residential includes > residential highways, houses, small parks and much more, > But I wouldn't say the whole area is a garden, so a garden should only > be tagged where there is a garden or mainly a garden. > In addition a single garden is a single garden, while a residential area > may consists of several blocks. > Two gardens are two gardens and should be mapped as two objects in OSM, > I think. > > regards > Peter +1 If nobody disagrees, I would like to modify the first sentence of the wiki to the following. "A garden is a distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms of nature." And the last sentence of the description: "Meant to tag the land area itself, which might be for example fenced or distinguishable by its vegetation." If you do not want to use a new tag for public gardens, those should at least be mentioned at leisure=garden. Now the description seems to be written generally for private gardens. Which could also mean, that it is necessary to add access=yes to the POI, if it should be noticed as such. This would imply some sentences like: "A garden can also be a part of a park and open to the public. This can be indicated by adding access=yes. If there is no clear border of the area, it is recommended to use a node to describe the object." I guess this would be the more accepted solution instead of creating a new tag for gardens dedicated to the public, as parks seem to be at the OSM Wiki. Cheers cracklinrain ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are addresses ... objects vs attributes
2013/7/25 Peter Wendorff > > on a side note some of the values above like swimming are currently > under the sport key, not leisure. > > Typical values for leisure are pitch, track, stadium, marina, > playground, park, garden... > well, a pool that allows swimming, but is not useful for competitive > swimming I would count as sports IMHO would better be leisure=swimming > than sport=swimming, but I may be wrong here. > I'm opposing leisure=swimming as it doesn't fit (IMHO) into the common logics of the leisure key. Swimming is an activity while leisure usually describes an object (be it physical like pitch or formal/legal like a nature reserve). IMHO it would always be leisure=swimming_pool and you can put the actions for which it is suitable into the sport key (or another key if you don't like the sport semantics in some cases), e.g. sport=competitive_diving (or diving), swimming. If you are to map a small children's pool you might use either another "sport" like feet_dipping ;-) or another value for leisure (e.g. leisure=splasher_pool instead of swimming_pool) (personally I'd prefer another value for leisure, i.e. the latter). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re: landcover=trees definition
sent from a phone > Am 10.08.2015 um 11:56 schrieb Daniel Koć : > > landcover=garden to me this is clearly a landuse, in osm typically mapped as leisure=garden This garden value should be discouraged for landcover cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> Thanks for putting this up. I would actually try to reduce some of it
> to the necessary:
> "The most common form of garden, located in proximity to a residence,
> usually private access only. The main purpose is usually relaxation
> activities. " - I would delete "The main purpose is usually relaxation
> activities. " because it restricts without benefit.
By this I have tried to incorporate the idea that in case of residential
garden it doesn't really matter if you have a nice garden in the french
style or a plain lawn.
> "Botanical gardens are generally well-tended parks displaying a wide
> range of plants labeled with their botanical names. They may contain
> specialist plant collections such as cacti and succulent plants, herb
> gardens, plants from particular parts of the world, and so on."
> I would put it more into a scientific context: "Botanical gardens are
> scientifically structured and labelled collections of living plants
> with the purpose of scientific research, conservation, display and
> education."
This was mostly copied out of wikipedia, but your definition is better,
I would just change the last "and" to "or".
> " garden:style=kitchen - These gardens have usually no aesthetic
> function, they're used for growing vegetable, herbs, etc. "
>
> I would delete "These gardens have usually no aesthetic function"
> because it is IMHO not usefull and depends on taste.
Makes sense, I'll change that
> Are there any ideas how to solve the problem that this more or less
> obsoletes leisure=park? Shall we allow the values garden:type and
> garden:style for parks as well? This could be done by simply avoiding
> the prefix ("type" and "style" without the garden).
I have thought about that, but...
1) We need the prefix, so it is clear type/style of what we are tagging.
2) It is true that leisure=park is somewhat similar to the garden, but I
still consider a park as more or less grassy area with fewer plants, or
at least smaller variety. And personally I don't know any area where I
would hesitate if I should tag it as a park or garden - usually most of
the local folks call it one way or the other and the area often has one
of the words in its name.
3) This could in theory incorporate many of other tags like
landuse=allotments,vineyard,orchard etc., but I guess these are meant
for rather large scale, and I think they should stay where they are
(landuse key). I think leisure=garden should be located exclusively in
landuse=recreation_ground, or residential (for garden:type=residential),
maybe even landuse=allotments if anyone wants to tag each property
separately.
Regards,
Petr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
John Smith napsal(a): > On 22 May 2010 20:13, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> 2010/5/19 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >>> I see your point... I think the wiki definition of >>> landuse=recreation_ground is a bit in conflict with common sense (like >>> the leisure=garden was) and it should be changed. >> >> I don't think so. Recreation ground is a term that is refering to >> sports, even though it's name seems to be more generic. > > In Australia at least, recreation grounds are usually pretty specific > areas used for things like horse sports. I admit, I'm not from English speaking country, so I have no idea if this term has any specific meaning, my interpretation is based on understanding it from sources like wikipedia and my own knowledge of English language. Even though Wikipedia says recreation isn't completely the same as leisure - that 'recreation' is more active way of spending free time (e.g. sport) than 'leisure' (e.g. reading a book in a park), all tags relating sports in OSM are under leisure, so I think it's no big deal. But I may be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time :-)). Anyway, what do you think is an appropriate landuse value for areas like public gardens and parks? By the way, you can do for example jogging in a park, so I would say those two terms at least overlap in those areas. Regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture
2010/11/7 Ulf Lamping :
> I came to the conclusion, that deciding if e.g. a museum better fits in
> tourism or leisure is pointless - as it is both and the decision will
> largely depend on your personal bias and the museum in question.
yes, and both is not suitable to give a good description, as "leisure"
and "tourism" both mean almost nothing: leisure is everything you do
when you are not payed, tourists do all kind of stuff according to
their personal inclination. It could also be "tourism=beach" which
most Germans would maybe find OK, while if you live somewhere with a
beach you would say that the beach is "yours" (as well).
> You may have a look at recent versions of JOSM. I have spend quite some time
> thinking about how to put these into the preset menu so that it makes sense.
> The solution that made most sense to me (and doesn't take care too much
> about the existing tags) is:
>
> - tourism
> - culture
> - leisure
this sounds reasonable. I wanted for a long time to have culture, but
my last attempts couldn't find support some time ago...
> Limit tourism to signposts, information bureaus and alike.
+1. Not sure for tourism=viewpoint. Is OK IMHO, but could also become
a key (viewpoint=yes/)
> Deciding between culture and leisure is a lot easier then ...
IMHO leisure is not a very good key either and the definition is too
inclusive ("is a Key for all the places where people go for
recreation/leisure."), because some people go to the library, others
to the beach, others in the mountains, some like to read, some go
cycling, some go mapping, ... I'd say the key (definition) is weak
because you can put almost everything into it by this definition. But
in reality it almost works, there is few stuff that doesn't belong to
a similar group of items:
Currently leisure lists the following main tags:
dog_park
sports_centre
golf_course
stadium
track
pitch
water_park
marina
slipway (is clearly a technical facility for boats and has nothing to
do with "leisure" IMHO).
fishing
nature_reserve
park
playground
garden
common
ice_rink
miniature_golf
dance
swimming_pool
So I don't want to touch leisure at the moment, though I see it less
general then "all you can do or need in your spare time" and more
focussed on sports and "official leisure activities" like fishing and
going to the park. I would not object on putting garden and park in
landuse though.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?
The green spaces ( and concrete or whatever) around a road are part of the infrastructure of a road. If the road wasn't there the land would have another use, such as farmland. So I believe this should be landuse=highway. It is being used as part of the surroundings of the highway. It doesn't doesn't stop someone micro mapping to add more detail. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 11/01/2017 21:40, Warin wrote: And I disagree with all of them being leisure=garden. The green patches between a road and a footway are not 'leisure' things .. they are 'safety' things .. particularly beside busy roads. If these same areas were covered with concrete .. would you still think of them as 'leisure'? In other words .. are you associating the 'cover' with the 'use' of these areas? Approach =the problem from 2 different ways of thinking - What is the 'cover' ... landcover ? and then What is the 'use' ... landuse? Once you divide those 2 things up it makes it clearer what is there. On 11-Jan-17 10:22 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: @Marc Zoutendijk thanks for the photos. I agree with all of them as leisure=garden, except for the bottom right one. From the photo it is not clear whether this is spontaneous vegetation or planted vegetation. Only n the latter case I would accept the garden concept On 11 January 2017 at 10:56, Marc Zoutendijk <mailto:marczoutend...@mac.com>> wrote: Op 10 jan. 2017, om 05:14 heeft Marc Gemis mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven: I thought the original question was broader than just the patches of green next to the road. I also want to know how to map those green patches when they are not part of roundabouts, or are located between sidewalk and road (where cars drive). To help us focus on what type of “green” I’m (and others) are thinking of, I have prepared a photo-collage: https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/guN1x7PBfZfP1ZR <https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/guN1x7PBfZfP1ZR> At the core of all this we we see: - areas of any size but more often small - a variety of grass, plants, flowers and trees in any number and combination - located mostly inside urban areas - there is not normally an entrance to the area but sometime a footpath divides it Tagging this with leisure=garden covers all situations quiet well, save for the “entrance” part. One other idea was to add the operator=* tag. E.g. operator=municipality. One of the other possibilities (proposed in the Dutch Forum) to tackle this problem, is to redifine village_green to mean something different in The Netherlands then in the UK. Such local meaning of tags we also see for highway tagging. Marc Zoutendijk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
Am 06.12.2013 13:09, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > What is the argument for putting the house, the entrance and the private > way then? IMHO we can map private trees, and I also like to map private > swimming pools. Of course you can map private fences, walls etc., and why > not map a private waterway? But all of this is landcover, stuff about water and barriers - no POIs at all. Leisure seems to be more like a POI. > Making an evaluation in which areas of the > cities there are private pools and in which there aren't might lead to > interesting results for instance. But private != public. If you are opening your garden to the public it remains of course as your property. So it is kind of private. But this private is not the discussed one (it should be tagged as permissive, I guess). We are talking about private-non-public. So if somebody is opening his garden, he is doing it for once. So this is not neccessarily something we are recording in OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
2010/5/23 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >> In Australia at least, recreation grounds are usually pretty specific >> areas used for things like horse sports. > > Even though Wikipedia says recreation isn't completely the same as recreation ground and recreation are 2 different things, just like a park and a soccer field are 2 different things even if you can play soccer in a park. > Anyway, what do you think is an appropriate landuse value for areas like > public gardens and parks? By the way, you can do for example jogging in What's wrong with the current tags? leisure=park leisure=garden add access=public if you want it to be explicit as to who can access them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square
> Place=square was defined until 3 days ago as “a > named square” and “a town or village square which is an open space common in > urban centres, typically crossed by streets but can also be a pedestrian > area or more rarely green areas.” > > I am perfectly fine with this documented definition But the first part wasn't a definition. "A named square" is not a defintion at all, since the word "square" is undefined. If this means "a feature that includes the word "square" in the name" as the page suggested back in 2015-2016 this is even worse, since it is completely culturally determined. I would be justified to tag all "alun-alun" feature as squares, even those that are 100% soccer pitch now, and those function as a walled palace garden. It also was incorrect as to how the tag is used; many place=square features are unnamed, as mentioned in this thread. The first second definition was a little better: " an open space common in urban centres..." Though this could be used for a leisure=pitch or leisure=park or leisure=garden or an amenity=parking, or a fenced-off roundabout etc... But then the second half of the definition offers several more possibilitiies: "typically crossed by streets" - That one is unclear, does it mean a street intersection/ road junction? Most mapped place=squares are NOT crossed by streets, it turns out. "But can also be a pedestria area or more rarely green areas.” A highway=pedestrian area is certainly a type of open public space, so that is fine, and the most classic squares fit that definition. But what does "more rarely green areas" mean? Is a green area just a flat, mowed lawn, or can it be an elaborate garden with trees, knolls, ponds? Can it be a leisure=pitch? Can it be a park with trees, picnic areas? I don't think that is what was intended: generally a "square" seems to be designed to be used for events or for people to congregate, at least historically, so if it is green, it is just grass, not trees, flowers, shrubs, gardens, water features, etc, else it's a park or garden. That's whey the prior definition is inadequate: it is non-orthagonal, it can include many types of features, and is impossible to translate into different cultures. -- Joseph Eisenberg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=events
I think places like these event venues with already fixed facilities on the area can be fitted in the event place proposal, but these can sound like amenities or leisures. There are places with no buildings used for festivities that are more like landuses, though. On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > When I think of leisure=events, I think of facilities (that are not > convention centers) where you can hold social and corporate events such as > company parties, wedding receptions, small musical concerts, product > launchings and the like. Here in my country there are plenty of such > facilities and I'm sure other countries do have them. Some examples: > > The Glass Garden - http://www.theglassgarden.com.ph/ > Fernwood Garden - http://fernwoodgarden.com/ > NBC Tent - https://www.facebook.com/pages/NBC-TENT/249917111705073 > Filinvest Tent - http://www.filinvesttent.com/ > Oasis Manila - https://www.facebook.com/TheOasisManila > > I admit that I have no idea how to tag these places. I was thinking > something like amenity=events_venue. > > Are these facilities also included in your proposed tag? > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Antônio Marcos wrote: > >> I have created this proposal some time ago for a new tag called >> leisure=events (originally landuse=events), which should describe areas >> reserved for events in a city or in a place (more info at the proposal page >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents). Does >> anybody have more opinions and suggestions on this, please? >> >> ___ >> 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] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
I would be glad if we could resolve the question of how to tag private backyards/gardens or whatever you want to call that in one word - I mean the green area around family houses, often only grass, sometimes few trees or other plants (varying from roses to a bed of carrot), usually fenced and definitely no public access. I assume this area goes under landuse='residential', so whatever other tag goes there, it shouldn't be landuse. Some people tag this as leisure='garden', but in my opinion a lawn behind a family house hardly qualifies for this tag, in fact according to the descriptions on wiki it's more consistent with leisure='park'... I think neither of them is correct. To the proposed solutions in this thread: * highway=pedestrian, area=yes - It doesn't really make sense to me to tag private fenced and _green_ areas by highway tag. * surface=grass, surface=lawn, surface=whatever - I don't like this because what I really want to map is not that my neighbour has a lawn behind his house, but the fact that there is a private "green" property - I think it makes no sense to try to map and tag every piece of these areas like "this" is grass, "this" is a bed of carrot, "there" are roses, "here" we have some bushes etc. * leisure='garden' or leisure='park' - see above Best regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden
Currently garden on wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden> is described as not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least planned. Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing more than standard lawns (like at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg> ) or areas overgrown with random plants ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG> or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG> ) and generally places that does not indicate that there was any attempt to create "distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms of nature" (like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG> ). Due to popularity of this kind of tagging I will edit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden> to mention that such areas do not qualify for leisure=garden (I am posting also here to make sure that my edit will be verified). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
2015-11-03 11:08 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > But John said "The blue flowers in the google street view above will be > removed and other flowers planted to grow for the next season. " > > > So it is 'man made'. > > > actually there is a tag that might be suitable for similar features: man_made=flower_bed There are not so many instances so far: http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/man_made=flower_bed In the case of very big / standalone installations I'd also tend to leisure=garden, while there could still be some individual flower beds tagged within. > I too would tag leisure=garden .. if you want you could add sub tags ... > garden=decorative_flowers? > > > there are the documented subtags garden:style and garden:type for subtagging gardens. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification For more specific descriptions, there are also the tags species / taxon and maybe landcover. > As for the attractive feature ... tag tourism=attraction ? > this is kind of a qualifier (IMHO it says that a feature is more important than what you might know by looking at the other tags), but it doesn't characterize or describe the object. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
On 16.07.2014 13:52, John Packer wrote: > I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious > landuse. > It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has around > 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious I also wondered about that addition, which I find completely useless. A park or garden around a church or temple is a leisure=park or leisure=garden in the first place. A religious school is an amenity=school. A dormitory is (part of) a landuse=residential. You can always add a religion=* tag to these features. But religion is really not a landuse. Therefore, I suggest removing landuse=religion from the wiki, or at least to mark it as nonsensical. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
Am 31.07.2014 06:24, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: > On 16.07.2014 13:52, John Packer wrote: >> I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious >> landuse. >> It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has around >> 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious > > I also wondered about that addition, which I find completely useless. A park > or garden around a church or temple is a leisure=park or leisure=garden in > the first place. A religious school is an amenity=school. A dormitory is > (part of) a landuse=residential. You can always add a religion=* tag to > these features. But religion is really not a landuse. +1 I would not call it "completely useless" but landuse=religious is wrong. We need some different key or simply use religious=* but I start to repeat myself. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] beer_garden
Is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Doutdoor_seating anyhow related to what you try to map ? Please note it is only a proposal. regards m On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Dave F wrote: > It appears many of us (UK only?) have been misinterpreting the meaning of > biergarten to represent outdoor seating areas of pubs. > > To rectify I'm changing the value to 'beer_garden' for the ones in my area > when specific areas are mapped as a polygon, but there seems a lack of > agreement on the key: > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=beer_garden#values > > Even though there's only five, I prefer 'leisure' as it ties in with > 'leisure=garden' (389000) > Amenity seems incorrect as the garden is a sub-feature of amenity=pub. > Similarly for 'landuse' > > Suggestions? > > DaveF > > > > > > > > > ___ > 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] Feature proposal - Voting - Wedding Reception
On 9/07/2015 9:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 09.07.2015 um 00:54 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: A Park is an object.. it has a physical existence, it can be used in various ways, for leisure and/or sport. isn't it the function as a park, You now talk of what it could be used for i.e. the function of an object. that lets you do sports or leisure activities? When the same physical stuff (lawn, trees, lake etc) was in a garden you might not be able to use it this way A park too maybe configured not to allow sports or leisure activities. Leisure is not an object but an action/function. in osm it is a key that describes objects, like swimming pools for instance, or football pitches. It describes the function of those objects .. leisure is not an object itself. Oxford Dictionary definition leisure =Use of free time for enjoyment<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/enjoyment#enjoyment__2> OSM definition leisure = places people go in their spare time... So the OSM definition takes a function and makes it an object... but to an English speaker leisure is not an object. Hence the confusion. OSM redefines things .. an apple becomes an orange. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] war_memorial
Can I contribute to this debate? AFAIK I invented memorial=war_memorial for the Project of the Week which coincided with 11th November 2010. I agonised a certain amount about the best tag (both because of issues mentioned here, and because it would apply to both historic=monument and historic=memorial). However, at the time there were next to no uses of the tag memorial. I did try and discuss this on IRC channels (eg with the Italian community) As it stands this represents around a third of instances of the key, and I believe pre-dates other classes of meanings for memorial (see http://taghistory.raifer.tech/ and type some typical values in). The original description page for the PotW makes it clear that the tag was intended for many different types of memorial (See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week/2010/Nov_10): - Walls - Gates (the Menin Gate) - Ossuaries (common in Italy) - Monuments (Vimy Ridge) - Simple village memorials - Public facilities (community halls, bridges etc) - Places dedicated as a war memorial: 2 large areas in the centre of the English Lake District including the highest peak in England - Arboreta I am personally not very keen on deprecating tags which represent such a significant fraction of the total usage of a key, as it is in effect changing the meaning of the key in the database (as opposed to its description in the wiki). However I share the sense of awkwardness with the dual meanings implicit in the use of the key. In general such tags have been disambiguated by adding colons. I'm not at all sure about memorial:theme (a proper tabulation of likely values is needed), but memorial:form (or something similar for plaque, wall etc) is easier. Note that in many cases the object will not need the form to be described if it is a building, man made structure etc). My personal suggestions are: - memorial:commemorates with values of person; event; war (or conflict); building ... - just a simple war_memorial=yes (which perhaps fits better with the wide range of object which could be tagged). As for arboreta, I have been wondering for some time about a garden tag for describing all the different features of large gardens, and arboreta are common features. The idea needs work, but would include arboretum, alpine, herbaceous, systematic & perennial beds, various kinds of glass houses, wild flower gardens, species collections etc. Jerry From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2017, 5:27 Subject: Re: [Tagging] war_memorial On 05-Oct-17 01:58 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks everyone for your thoughts re arboretums Why I brought this up - had a look at the historic=monument tag yesterday morning, which lead me to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CheckTheMonuments & http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html. That showed 4 monuments in my general area, 2 of which should apparently be memorials, 1 I'm not sure about & this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.00759/153.38376. The "Regional Arboretum" is shown as a monument &, by the conversations here, almost certainly shouldn't be (maybe it should be a Memorial? - will have to get up there & check it out on the ground); while the "ADF Grove" is, almost certainly correctly, a Memorial. Now, if the Regional Arboretum isn't actually marked as being a memorial to anybody / thing, & therefore not a memorial, how should it then appear in OSM? The Botanic Gardens as a whole are shown as landuse=recreation_ground; leisure=park. From a Google satellite shot https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0070891,153.3834806,174m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en, the Regional Arboretum is only an open group of trees, so how should it be mapped? It's definitely not intended for forestry / logging purposes, so it's not landuse=forest It's hardly a forest, so not natural=wood Doesn't produce anything so not landuse=orchard Leisure=garden? Garden brings to mind flowers & bushes, not trees, but I guess it may still apply? Sydney Royal Botanic Garden is tagged as leisure=garden garden:type=botanical Possibly leisure=garden garden:type=arboretum?? I think this is the best solution I have - not documented and no actual existence in the data base. Way 21370319 (Nottingham Arboretum) is tagged as name=Arboretum leisure=park this looks wrong to me .. the name may just be a description. The Australian Canberra arboretum is tagged as tourist=attraction A quick look has arboretums tagged as forest (!), conservation, grass (!), leisure=nature_reserve and probably other things. Will be interesting to see where this goes. I have mapped some 'local' memorials
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
2013/12/7 cracklinrain > If there is no clear border of the > area, it is recommended to use a node to describe the object." > I do not agree with this part, a garden should have a clear border, or at least the mapper will have to decide where it ends. Usually it shouldn't be difficult to determine the border of a garden. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
landuse=flowerbed is proposed here.( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flowerbed) I think this tag is suitable to map flower beds in a park or a garden as written in proposal document. muramoto 2015-11-03 21:22 GMT+09:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2015-11-03 11:08 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > >> But John said "The blue flowers in the google street view above will be >> removed and other flowers planted to grow for the next season. " >> >> >> So it is 'man made'. >> >> >> > > actually there is a tag that might be suitable for similar features: > man_made=flower_bed > There are not so many instances so far: > http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/man_made=flower_bed > > In the case of very big / standalone installations I'd also tend to > leisure=garden, while there could still be some individual flower beds > tagged within. > > > >> I too would tag leisure=garden .. if you want you could add sub tags ... >> garden=decorative_flowers? >> >> >> > > there are the documented subtags > garden:style > and > garden:type > for subtagging gardens. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification > > For more specific descriptions, there are also the tags species / taxon > and maybe landcover. > > >> As for the attractive feature ... tag tourism=attraction ? >> > > this is kind of a qualifier (IMHO it says that a feature is more important > than what you might know by looking at the other tags), but it doesn't > characterize or describe the object. > > Cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden
Mateusz, I don't know if you have a garden yourself, but more than often people have plans fot their lot, without been able to realize them :) On the other side of the transat chair, there's also people enjoying some wilderness in their garden. Honestly, I won't judge the gardening talent of the owners of the lots you depicted. Yves Le 28 mai 2018 17:54:30 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : >Currently garden on wiki at >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden ><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden> is described >as >not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least >planned. > >Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing >more >than standard lawns (like at >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg ><https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg> >) or areas overgrown with random plants ( >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG ><https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG> >or >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG ><https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG> >) and generally places that does not indicate that there was any >attempt >to create "distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside >for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms >of nature" (like >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG ><https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG> >). > >Due to popularity of this kind of tagging I will edit >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden ><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden> >to mention that such areas do not qualify for leisure=garden >(I am posting also here to make sure that my edit will be verified). Yves___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
2011/8/31 Bryce Nesbitt : > I'm a city dweller. We have some (and will soon have some very prominent) > rooftop parks. That's fine, you can tag them with leisure=park (or maybe leisure=garden, and garden:type) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
Jonas Minnberg wrote: > [snip] > > landuse=yard (For private backyards etc, usually inaccessible, even if > they may look park-like on the satellite). In the UK we would sometimes call a backyard a garden. leisure=garden already exists. Cheers, Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden
What would be the appropriate tagging for those areas? (Over here, there's usually a deserted wastedump or an unexploded WW1- bomb underneath, but that's another discussion). 2018-05-28 17:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Currently garden on wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden is described as > not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least planned. > > Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing more > than standard lawns (like at > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_ > Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg > ) or areas overgrown with random plants ( > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG > or > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG > ) and generally places that does not indicate that there was any attempt > to create "distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside > for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms > of nature" (like > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG > ). > > Due to popularity of this kind of tagging I will edit > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden > to mention that such areas do not qualify for leisure=garden > (I am posting also here to make sure that my edit will be verified). > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Vr gr Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] beer_garden
Apologies, I shouldn't have used the term 'seating areas'. They certainly form a part of the garden, but can also include other features such as playgrounds & large areas of grass (I went to one which had a full sized football pitch in its grounds). DaveF On 14/06/2017 15:10, Marc Gemis wrote: Is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Doutdoor_seating anyhow related to what you try to map ? Please note it is only a proposal. regards m On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Dave F wrote: It appears many of us (UK only?) have been misinterpreting the meaning of biergarten to represent outdoor seating areas of pubs. To rectify I'm changing the value to 'beer_garden' for the ones in my area when specific areas are mapped as a polygon, but there seems a lack of agreement on the key: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=beer_garden#values Even though there's only five, I prefer 'leisure' as it ties in with 'leisure=garden' (389000) Amenity seems incorrect as the garden is a sub-feature of amenity=pub. Similarly for 'landuse' Suggestions? DaveF ___ 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] Greenery adjacent to roads
Jonathan Bennett (openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk) wrote: On 13/07/2010 07:37, char...@cferrero.net wrote: How might I go about tagging the often quite extensive green stretches of land to the side of larger roads here in Abu Dhabi (and indeed in many parts of the world)? Sometimes this is just grass (in which case landuse=grass kind of makes sense) but often this is a mixture of grass, trees and decorative plants in varying proportions. In many cases it kind of looks like a park, but no-one in their right mind would actually try to use it as such (and indeed, in central reservations they'd have to be suicidal to try). One idea might be: leisure=garden or leisure=park combined with access=no but this seems a bit like tag gymnastics to me. surface=grass is about all you can justify. They're certainly not parks or gardens (and landuse=grass is just wrong. You're using the land *for* grass? What does that mean?) I mentioned landuse=grass because it is a documented tag (albeit a stub, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass) and the areas in question have been deliberately planted with grass, rather than being natural (if they were natural they'd be sand). I hadn't realised that the intention of landuse is to imply use of land for a particular reason beyond the merely decorative. Use the tags to describe what it is, and if it's just miscellaneous ground that's not really doing anything, then just map it as part of the surrounding area. What it is, is an often extensive man made environment designed for decorative purposes. Much like a garden, really. But unlike the leisure=garden concept, you're not really supposed to go inside it, merely look at it! -- Charlie ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens
On 12/07/19 19:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 12 Jul 2019, 10:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 12/07/19 17:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 12. Jul 2019, at 09:12, Marc Gemis wrote: Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ? No, we refine this with additional tags. This method can be applied to private gardens as well. For some features we do distinguish, for others not. For example a private bathroom, trash can or water tap would not be tagged like a publicly accessible one (we put generally more focus on usability/accessibility than on ownership). Where are these private bathroom/s, trash can/s and water tap/s you mention Martin? Public toilet: amenity=toilets Private toilet: not tagged (so not tagged like a public one) I am unable to link to well tagged private toilets as in this case private tagging is to not map it. A similar logic would have private roads not mapped. Yet they are. Same for private buildings, farm yards, woods, beaches and so on. There is a local yearly garden exhibition that opens up private gardens. Only some gardens and of those not every year. So it is not possible to state an 'opening' time, but it is possible to map them as leisure=garden, access=private. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Wedding Reception
sent from a phone > Am 09.07.2015 um 00:54 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > A Park is an object.. it has a physical existence, it can be used in various > ways, for leisure and/or sport. isn't it the function as a park, that lets you do sports or leisure activities? When the same physical stuff (lawn, trees, lake etc) was in a garden you might not be able to use it this way > > Leisure is not an object but an action/function. in osm it is a key that describes objects, like swimming pools for instance, or football pitches. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Arboretum - how to tag?
sent from a phone > On 10. Oct 2018, at 15:10, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > Well, an Arboretum is a "botanical tree garden", is it not? So why not > leisure=garden (+ maybe additional tags, see wiki article)? if it is seen as garden, I would use garden:type=arboretum From actual usage, the only tag in use is arboretum=yes 38 times https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/arboretum https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
