Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14 lip 2019, 15:26 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:15, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> While I am all in favor of being detailed with landuse mapping (e.g. not 
> including public streets and sidewalks in residential landuse), I would still 
> consider the gardens part of the residential landuse. Mapping gardens does 
> not imply you have to exclude them from the landuse.
>
Yes, residential garden are clearly 
part of landuse=residential___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Peter Elderson]

That's what I meant.
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op zo 14 jul. 2019 om 15:29 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:15, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> While I am all in favor of being detailed with landuse mapping (e.g. not
> including public streets and sidewalks in residential landuse), I would
> still consider the gardens part of the residential landuse. Mapping gardens
> does not imply you have to exclude them from the landuse.
>
> 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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:15, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> 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.


While I am all in favor of being detailed with landuse mapping (e.g. not 
including public streets and sidewalks in residential landuse), I would still 
consider the gardens part of the residential landuse. Mapping gardens does not 
imply you have to exclude them from the landuse.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Warin]

On 14/07/19 16:48, Pee Wee wrote:



Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Marc Gemis >:


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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Peter Elderson]

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.
>
> 
> ___
> 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

[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.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Pee Wee]

> 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 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

[Pee Wee]

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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Warin]

On 14/07/19 04:44, Florian Lohoff wrote:

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:17:18AM +1000, Warin wrote:

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.

The same reason i do not map my kitchen sink as a
natural=water/water=pond

Its not for the public leisure.


As a member of the public I see some private gardens as pleasurable - without 
going inside them but viewing them from outside.

So they form part of my 'leisure'.

Here local councils require a 'set back' from the road to any buildings, this 
area is 'used' to provide a 'street scape' that the public can see, if not 
access.

Usually a household sink cannot be seen from the street so is of no/little 
interest to the public.




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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Alessandro Sarretta]

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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2019, at 19:55, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> You can of course just walk across when there is a gap in the traffic, 
> walking would be very restricted if you only crossed roads at crossings.


while I agree in principle, the legal situation in many countries is that you 
have to use dedicated crossings if you are near them. AFAIK it is something 
like 100m. Generally you will not be fined for crossing at red or crossing the 
road whilst not using a nearby marked crossing.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:17:18AM +1000, Warin wrote:
> 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.

The same reason i do not map my kitchen sink as a
natural=water/water=pond

Its not for the public leisure.

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

[Volker Schmidt]

I would not recommend to try to cross a roundabout in Italy like that for
your own safety. I don't know if it is forbidden explicitly.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 19:56, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 16:56 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 13. Jul 2019, at 16:36, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>
> Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout?
> If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no be more
> appropriate?
>
>
>
> it is often not accessible, because no crossings lead there and you are
> not allowed to stop in the roundabout.
>
>
> You can of course just walk across when there is a gap in the traffic,
> walking would be very restricted if you only crossed roads at crossings.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 16:56 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> 
> On 13. Jul 2019, at 16:36, Tom Pfeifer 
> wrote:
> 
> > Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout?
> > If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no
> > be more appropriate?
> 
> it is often not accessible, because no crossings lead there and you
> are not allowed to stop in the roundabout. 

You can of course just walk across when there is a gap in the traffic,
walking would be very restricted if you only crossed roads at
crossings.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2019, at 16:36, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout?
> If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no be more 
> appropriate?


it is often not accessible, because no crossings lead there and you are not 
allowed to stop in the roundabout. There are of course also a lot of examples 
of roundabouts with accessible centers, e.g. in Berlin:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/494971000#map=16/52.5145/13.3501
or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/495732599#map=16/52.5126/13.3218
or here in Rome:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.90269/12.49625

pedestrians sometimes actually do cross roundabouts in a straight line, but it 
is similar to walking at a red light.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Tom Pfeifer]

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 for private front/back gardens

[Volker Schmidt]

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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Warin]

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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 10:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/07/19 19:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

I am happy with leisure=garden + access=private for private gardens.  An
argument elsewhere
in the thread refers to the small size of some private gardens but I'd
class that under "too small
to bother mapping" not "must not map because it's private."

Even so, I do not find that equating roads, gardens and toilets
compelling.  Not as stated so far.
We map private roads and gardens because they are visible in aerial imagery
and/or street
level imagery.  We don't do so because the general public can necessarily
access them but
because they may be navigational landmarks.  Also, delivery drivers may
make use of private
roads in order to deliver to the destination served by that road.  We do
not map private
toilets because not only are they not accessible to the public but also
because they are
not navigational landmarks.

Let's not go down the route of saying that because we map private X we can
also map
private Y.  It's about more than just public/private.  It's also about
visibility.

That said, I don't have any objection to a mapper adding his/her own
private toilet just for
fun.  Not very useful to anyone, but I don't feel a need to invoke the
mapping police on
anyone that does it.  Mapping somebody else's private toilet without
permission is another
matter.  But it might be sensible if carto rendered private toilets VERY
faintly. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Florian Lohoff]

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

12 Jul 2019, 11:50 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> 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 dodistinguish, for others not. For 
 example a private bathroom,trash can or water tap would not be 
 tagged like a publiclyaccessible one (we put generally more 
 focus onusability/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 (sonot tagged
>> like a public one)
>>
>> I am unable to link to welltagged private
>> toilets as in this caseprivate 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. 
>
I am not arguing against mapping 
private gardens and other objects 
that you mentioned.

But mapping private bathrooms and
water taps is not welcome.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Warin]

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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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.

There are some public toilets with restricted use
 (for example toilets at university campus for use by students and faculty, 
tagged access=customers).___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Paul Allen]

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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Warin]

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?

There are a few bathroom=* on the data base .. according to the values most of 
them are private but some are public.
No wiki page .. 12 users. They all appear to be toilets. So incorrectly tagged 
anyway - I expected a bath!!


I see no reason why 'private' things need another tag.

Private jetties get the same tag, private roads same tag ...


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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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).


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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Peter Elderson]

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
> )
> 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
> .
>
> In the first versions
> 
> 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
> 
> 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

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM Pee Wee  wrote:
>
> 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
>

and how many private, residential gardens are mapped (around the
world) without this type tag? This number is pretty hard to determine,
but should be taken into account if you want to change a definition
from 2010.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Pee Wee]

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 

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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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] leisure=garden

[cracklinrain]

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] leisure=garden

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/12/7 cracklinrain cra_klinr...@gmx.de

 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] leisure=garden

[John F. Eldredge]

On 12/07/2013 01:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2013/12/7 cracklinrain cra_klinr...@gmx.de mailto:cra_klinr...@gmx.de

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
One issue we are running into here is differing meanings of the word 
garden.  In US usage, a garden is an area set aside for deliberate 
cultivation of plants; in UK usage, the entire area of land surrounding 
a house is a garden, whether you are cultivating plants, have it covered 
in grass, or are just letting it grow weeds.  I suspect there are 
probably several other meanings of garden, when you look at world-wide 
usage of the English language.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

attachment: john.vcf___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/12/7 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com

 In US usage, a garden is an area set aside for deliberate cultivation of
 plants; in UK usage, the entire area of land surrounding a house is a
 garden, whether you are cultivating plants, have it covered in grass, or
 are just letting it grow weeds.  I suspect there are probably several other
 meanings of garden, when you look at world-wide usage of the English
 language.



In OSM we use by definition the UK spelling and meaning of words.

Generally you can't take tags literally but should rely on their definition
to see what they include and exclude and what they express. E.g. foot=yes
has a specific meaning refering to legal access for pedestrians, it doesn't
mean something has a foot.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[nounours]

Am 06.12.2013 um 02:05 schrieb Masi Master:

 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

+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/12/6 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de

 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.



-1
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? 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.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[cracklinrain]

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] leisure=garden

[Matthijs Melissen]

I agree with Martin. Also the fact that an object (parking, garden,
swimming pool) is private is in itself useful information for the general
public. You might for example see a parking or garden on aerial imagery,
and wonder if it's possible to go there.

Related question: if someone decides to pave their backyard, is it still a
garden?

-- Matthijs
On Dec 6, 2013 12:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:


 2013/12/6 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de

 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.



 -1
 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? 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.

 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

[nounours]

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 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

[cracklinrain]

Am 06.12.2013 13:26, schrieb Matthijs Melissen:
 I agree with Martin. Also the fact that an object (parking, garden,
 swimming pool) is private is in itself useful information for the general
 public. You might for example see a parking or garden on aerial imagery,
 and wonder if it's possible to go there.

Well... I guess that at least at Germany private pools and those which
are open to the public are distinct from each other. To operate
something public you might fit to other rules. On your private property
you might not be forced to control the quality of the water for example.
But this is more a guess.

 Related question: if someone decides to pave their backyard, is it still a
 garden?

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.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[Jonathan]

:-)

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 osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de 
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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 06/dic/2013 um 13:39 schrieb cracklinrain cra_klinr...@gmx.de:
 
 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).

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[bulwersator]

For example to render view of city from OSM data also data about private 
gardens, trees, swimming pools etc are necessary.

 On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 04:26:18 -0800 Matthijs Melissen 
lt;i...@matthijsmelissen.nlgt; wrote  


I agree with Martin. Also the fact that an object (parking, garden, swimming 
pool) is private is in itself useful information for the general public. You 
might for example see a parking or garden on aerial imagery, and wonder if it's 
possible to go there.
 Related question: if someone decides to pave their backyard, is it still a 
garden?
 -- Matthijs
 On Dec 6, 2013 12:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer lt;dieterdre...@gmail.comgt; 
wrote:
 
2013/12/6 Masi Master lt;masi-mas...@gmx.degt;
 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.
 



-1

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? 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.
 

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 


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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 06/12/2013 02:05, Masi Master wrote:
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.


We do need them - as long as they are in public view. For example, when 
seen from above, swimming pools make excellent points of reference for 
navigation.



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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/12/7 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de

 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

[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.

 On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 01:37:06 -0800 cracklinrain 
lt;cra_klinr...@gmx.degt; 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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/12/5 cracklinrain cra_klinr...@gmx.de

 What do you think?



have a look at garden:type and garden:style if you are interested in
further details:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

[cracklinrain]

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/12/5 cracklinrain cra_klinr...@gmx.de

 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] leisure=garden

[bulwersator]

+1, it seems quite obvious.

 On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:46:55 -0800 Martin Koppenhoefer 
lt;dieterdre...@gmail.comgt; wrote  



2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch lt;osm-lis...@ivkasogis.degt;
 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

[Masi Master]

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 bulwersa...@zoho.com:


+1, it seems quite obvious.

 On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:46:55 -0800 Martin Koppenhoefer  
lt;dieterdre...@gmail.comgt; wrote 




2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch lt;osm-lis...@ivkasogis.degt;
 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

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 06.12.2013 02:05, schrieb Masi Master:
 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.
+0.5
yes, at least as far as it's not visible from outside when walking
around, but no for nothing except house, entrance and way.
IMHO a fence, wall or otherwise visible border should be mapped to
enable a distinction between public area (street, sidewalk,...) and
the private ground that belongs to the house.

regards
Peter

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