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

Reply via email to