2008/8/2 David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've been doing it as leisure=park too. Why? Because I suggested
> landuse=grass soon after I started mapping a couple of years ago for
> exactly the bits between houses where you might otherwise expect houses
> to be, large traffic islands etc, but I was met with such a massively
> negative reaction from the list ("it's no different from a park" - when
> plainly it is), so I gave up and did them as parks and have been doing
> so ever since. That's why Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire is littered
> with tiny little parks!i'd tend to agree. a park has a very specific meaning, making it different from a patch of grass in a public space, which i would consider to be part of the public right of way it is adjacent to. there are usually a set of rules and regulations, which apply to parks, which will be common to all parks under a given jurisdiction (city council, regional council, national parks organisation, etc.). this is the reason the concept of a park prevails today - to enable separation from patches of grass or other unremarkable areas of land. when we consider national parks, there are often acts of parliament to explicitly protect them, and set in stone the rules and regulations for using them - by contrast, the only rules that apply to random patches of grass, such as those on the meridian strip/central reservation of roads, are the general laws of the land. as an aside, the idea of landuse=grass strikes me as a bit silly. residential, commercial and retail i can understand, but this going a bit far; it's not describing what the land is used for, the whole point of the landuse tag. if we really want to tag this (and i think this may just be tagging for the renderers - all-in-all a bad thing), then natural=grass would be far more useful _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
