On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by [email protected]:
"this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this
land might be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could
still build a patio and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some
trees, it is my residential land and I am allowed to do that,
meaning it has residential use, even if it is "unimproved" presently.
It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.
I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for; shade, to
sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think about things.
People park their cars, caravans and boats under them.
They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my residence.
If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will grass and
flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped as residential
landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous.
These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to appear
to be removing property rights from residential landowners (by
diminishing landuse=residential areas)
Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect property
rights and may remove them?
That is ridiculous.
but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do
remain in a natural state, while distinctly and presently "having"
residential landuse.
For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a clearly
incorrect mapping.
Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that does not
mean they are not parks because of the land cover.
I would contend similar consideration by held for residential landuse.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
