Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
sent from a phone > On 26 Mar 2017, at 15:41, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I've usually heard "brownfield" in a city planning context to be any formerly > built property that is left void of any buildings, save possibly for leftover > bits of parking lot, driveway or foundation. Often the sad result of a > tornado and the resulting cleanup. probably you can't exclude pollution in these cases. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > "brownfield" seems quite misleading as description for a plot formerly > occupied by a house, it would be appropriate for former industrial or > commercial areas with suspected pollution (in case of former industrial and > some kind of commercial use it is very likely that the former use has left > some kind of pollution). The wiki confirms this point of view. > I've usually heard "brownfield" in a city planning context to be any formerly built property that is left void of any buildings, save possibly for leftover bits of parking lot, driveway or foundation. Often the sad result of a tornado and the resulting cleanup. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
Tom Pfeifer writes: > On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: >> "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. >> Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. > > Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer > brownfield as above. I disagree about calling it troll. I think landuse should have a set of values such that exactly one value is used for any particular land. Therefore there will be at least oen value that indicate that the land isn't really being used. The underlying negation issue actually does exist in the world, and it's better to represent it straightforwardly as an exceptional case than to insist on a different key because the implied semantics of landuse are uncomfortable with disused. Part of the reaason I advocate for a mutually exclusive jointly exhaustive set of landuse tags is that this seems to be the tradition in human geography. The other part is that such structure seems to make it easier for data consumers. > I agree that landcover=* can describe what has grown there. I also agree. But even further, landcover and landuse should be independent tags, and each location should have both. If there is a lot that is currently covered with grass, landcover=grass is appropriate. But there should also be a landuse. I have been unclear on brownfield/greenfield, but would look it up in the wiki if needed :-) While OSM uses standard British English, I as an en_US speaker perceive brownfield/greenfield to be relatively recent politically-inspired terms rather than terms of longer standing and thus more likely to be understood by en_(not-GB) speakers. I would also agree that a vacant house would be landuse=residential disused=yes, It may be that if brownfield just means "was used, and now more or less has structures/etc. from the previous use removed" and not "slated for development", then all cases where I would want to use landuse=disused would be served by brownfield. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:27:40AM +1100, Warin wrote: > On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote: > > > English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory > > > here. > > > > > > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. > > > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. > > > > I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused. > > I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer > > being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major > > features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and > > massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is > > informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use > > for any other purpose: they are quarries. > > > ' > > I think disused is correct ... > but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, > but it gives some comprehension as to what is going on. > > disused:landuse=residential > > This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land use > of residential. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused: > > Does that help? Not sure. I think that I discovered something like that but then the quarries were not rendered. Of course, I don't want to tag for the renderer, but in this area these features are highly significant, and it would be misleading - and dangerous if the map is used for navigation - if they are not shown. I have just refreshed my memory on what I did, and I see that in one case I used disused=quarry with landuse=quarry which is being rendered. That seems to be in the spirit of wiki/Key:disused:, at least. But you could still object to the apparent contradiction. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
2017-03-14 2:55 GMT+01:00 John Willis : > I was unaware of a pollution angle. I get this both explicitly from a dictionary and from wikipedia as also implicitly from the osm wiki: "Brownfield is a land scheduled for new development which was previously used for industrial purposes or some commercial uses." (naming former "industrial" and "some commercial uses" implies potential pollution). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
Note that cities sometimes also include vacant lots that have not yet been built on, particularly around the outer edges. When I was a child, there was a vacant lot between our house and the next one, because the original landowner had chosen to buy two lots and build on just one of them. They continued to be sold as a pair through a couple more sales, before the vacant lot was eventually sold separately, and built upon. On March 12, 2017 4:42:35 PM Tristan Anderson wrote: What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which is often not the case. -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > "brownfield" seems quite misleading as description for a plot formerly > occupied by a house, it would be appropriate for former industrial or > commercial areas with suspected pollution I always understood the definition as "land that was previously used, then cleared to prepare for a different use. Lots are usually the site of existing structures or similar that were destroyed/demolished. With this definition, a vacant lot in a neighborhood (where a building or house stood) is definitely a brownfield. It is the opposite of greenfield construction - land cleared of native/natural habitat to be made ready for use for the first time - bulldozing a forest or filling in a swamp for construction. I was unaware of a pollution angle. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
Hi, this is not an example of troll tagging. Trolltag is a tag, not a value. landuse=disused is therefore not a troll tag landuse=something + disused=yes here disused=yes woudl be a trolltag as it negates another tag and data consumer must look for this tag to see what is the current status See here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag landuse=disused just does not seem nice to read but it will cause no problems to data consumers. Dalibor (chrabros) > -Original Message- > > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. > > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. > > Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer > brownfield > as above. > > > tom > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
Yes, that makes sense to me. Nashville, TN, where I live, has purchased some houses that were built in flood plains, demolished them, and doesn't allow anything to be built there now. The tag disused:landuse=residential seems like the logical one to use for those vacant lots. I suspect the foundation structures were filled in rather than removed. On March 13, 2017 6:28:09 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I favor "landuse=disused". English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here. "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused. I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use for any other purpose: they are quarries. Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the superficial contradiction that you highlight. Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such? But that is open to the same literal objection. ' I think disused is correct ... but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, but it gives some comprehension as to what is going on. disused:landuse=residential This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land use of residential. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused: Does that help? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 14-Mar-17 04:53 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 13.03.2017 16:57, Andy Townsend wrote: I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does not mean just "scheduled for development". It just means "was used for some development but is no longer". It _may_ then be used for something else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites), but that's not a requirement. It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of brownfield sites not scheduled for any development". Fine, so maybe we losen the Wiki definition a bit, saying that the land _might_ be scheduled for future development. That leaves the focus on the fact that the land had been used before. Might is rather too pessimistic for me to place that in OSM. I would prefer 'probable', both terms are subjective .. so some will object. So I would have the land _probably_ will be developed. On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer brownfield as above. I think it says what it was used for .. a disused church is still a church. The question should be ... is it still recognisable for what it was? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I favor "landuse=disused". English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here. "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused. I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use for any other purpose: they are quarries. Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the superficial contradiction that you highlight. Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such? But that is open to the same literal objection. ' I think disused is correct ... but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, but it gives some comprehension as to what is going on. disused:landuse=residential This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land use of residential. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused: Does that help? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I favor "landuse=disused". > > English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here. > > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused. I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use for any other purpose: they are quarries. Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the superficial contradiction that you highlight. Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such? But that is open to the same literal objection. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
Thanks for the input everone. I like the idea of grass/scrub/grassland depending on the site if there is no trace of the demolished buildings. If there is still something like a foundation, or slabs of broken concrete or other debris, then it would be tagged as a brownfield. There seems to be consensus that brownfield sites are not necessarily slated for redevelopment so the wiki pages should be changed to reflect this. What is less clear is whether the term brownfield is limited to sites contaminated from past industrial activity, or whether broken slabs of concrete from a house would qualify. In my opinion, they would. From: Tom Pfeifer Sent: March 13, 2017 1:53 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots On 13.03.2017 16:57, Andy Townsend wrote: > I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does > not mean just "scheduled for development". It just means "was used for > some development but is no longer". It _may_ then be used for something > else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites), > but that's not a requirement. > > It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of > brownfield sites not scheduled for any development". Fine, so maybe we losen the Wiki definition a bit, saying that the land _might_ be scheduled for future development. That leaves the focus on the fact that the land had been used before. On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer brownfield as above. I agree that landcover=* can describe what has grown there. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Tagging Info Page - OpenStreetMap<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> lists.openstreetmap.org Your email address: Your name (optional): You may enter a privacy password below. This provides only mild security, but should prevent others from messing with ... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 13.03.2017 16:57, Andy Townsend wrote: I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does not mean just "scheduled for development". It just means "was used for some development but is no longer". It _may_ then be used for something else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites), but that's not a requirement. It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of brownfield sites not scheduled for any development". Fine, so maybe we losen the Wiki definition a bit, saying that the land _might_ be scheduled for future development. That leaves the focus on the fact that the land had been used before. On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer brownfield as above. I agree that landcover=* can describe what has grown there. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 12/03/2017 21:42, Tristan Anderson wrote: ... In the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which is often not the case. I'm a native English British English speaker, and to me brownfield does not mean just "scheduled for development". It just means "was used for some development but is no longer". It _may_ then be used for something else in the future (you often hear "redevelopment of brownfield sites), but that's not a requirement. It'd be perfectly meaningful to say "in XYZ place there are lots of brownfield sites not scheduled for any development". Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > I favor "landuse=disused". English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here. "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something. Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing. use = no use? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
2017-03-13 14:09 GMT+01:00 Shawn K. Quinn : > On 03/13/2017 07:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > I favor "landuse=disused". > > That implies that there was previous significant human use, and now > > there is no real use. > > +1 > > I really like this idea; it fixes the issue of using > brownfield/greenfield, which imply "slated for future development". > +1, I also like the idea. details could be added in disused=... > > My suggestion including landuse=grass comes from JOSM presets. Should we > change these to natural=grass or similar? I'd prefer landcover=grass if the only notion is "grass" Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 03/13/2017 07:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I favor "landuse=disused". > That implies that there was previous significant human use, and now > there is no real use. +1 I really like this idea; it fixes the issue of using brownfield/greenfield, which imply "slated for future development". My suggestion including landuse=grass comes from JOSM presets. Should we change these to natural=grass or similar? I agree that it doesn't belong in landuse=* unless there's some subtlety about landuse=grass that I'm missing. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
I favor "landuse=disused". That implies that there was previous significant human use, and now there is no real use. As to "if no use, no tag", the point is that there is a difference between knowing that an area is essentially abandoned, vs it being forested or meadow or whatever and being left as it is, which is quite different. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
2017-03-12 23:12 GMT+01:00 Andy Townsend : > I'd use "brownfield", both in OSM and more generally, for land that isn't > scheduled for redevelopment yet. "brownfield" seems quite misleading as description for a plot formerly occupied by a house, it would be appropriate for former industrial or commercial areas with suspected pollution (in case of former industrial and some kind of commercial use it is very likely that the former use has left some kind of pollution). The wiki confirms this point of view. I know, the only other established landuse tag in OSM for vacant building plots is "greenfield", and this requires no previous occupation by buildings according to the wiki. So basically it doesn't seem we have an established tag for this kind of plots, and something new will have to be proposed. Cheers, Martin https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgreenfield https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbrownfield ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 7:12 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > I'd use "brownfield", both in OSM and more generally, for land that isn't > scheduled for redevelopment yet. Brownfield, disused, and natural=scrub is a common combo for me when a plot was cleared for sale, then sits for a long time and overgrown with 2m tall weedy scrub. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
+1 If you don't know .. then don't tag it. (grass is not a land use, it is a land cover ... landcover=grass) On 13-Mar-17 12:24 PM, Dalibor Jelínek wrote: +1 :-) Dalibor -Original Message- From: Wolfgang Zenker [mailto:wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:52 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots * Shawn K. Quinn [170312 23:51]: On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote: What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which is often not the case. Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea? As that land is apparently unused, how about NOT tagging any landuse at all? Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
+1 :-) Dalibor > -Original Message- > From: Wolfgang Zenker [mailto:wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:52 AM > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots > > * Shawn K. Quinn [170312 23:51]: > > On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote: > >> What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? > >> That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other > >> building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, > >> and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In > >> the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for > >> redevelopment, which is often not the case. > > > Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood > > depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea? > > As that land is apparently unused, how about NOT tagging any landuse at all? > > Wolfgang > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
* Shawn K. Quinn [170312 23:51]: > On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote: >> What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? >> That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building >> that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land >> is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In the past I have >> used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which >> is often not the case. > Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood > depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea? As that land is apparently unused, how about NOT tagging any landuse at all? Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote: > What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? > That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building > that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land > is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In the past I have > used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which > is often not the case. Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 12/03/17 21:42, Tristan Anderson wrote: What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which is often not the case. I'd use "brownfield", both in OSM and more generally, for land that isn't scheduled for redevelopment yet. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which is often not the case. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging