On Monday 30 November 2009 18:23:33 Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Cartinus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Map what you can verify: > > * Often these are expanses of grass with the occasional bush -> > > landuse=grass > > Not to be a pain, but that doesn't exist (or isn't documented). > landuse=meadow I guess. That would actually satisfy a lot of my needs.
Before you say something doesn't exist, it is always a good idea to check tagwatch or osmdoc: <http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/landuse/grass> 11393 occurrences of landuse grass in the database when they updated their data a few months ago. I don't know about documentation, but it is in the list of presets in JOSM. IMHO landuse=meadow has a narrower definition then landuse grass. It would be either agricultural land or naturally occurring grassland. I would actually prefer natural=meadow for the last, but since the preset in JOSM doesn't show what key is used for meadow, both natural and agricultural meadows are tagged with the same tag by a lot of people. landuse=grass is for any grass covered surface where you don't have a more specific tag. > > * They can be expanses of shrubland -> natural=shrub > > natural=scrub? Yes sorry, English is not my native language. > > Of course if you know it is greenfield/farmland there are landuse tags > > for that. > > Yeah. I guess the term "greenfield" is more common in the US? It seems a > bit hard to verify that building is "scheduled". Does a big "sold" sign > count? Of course. I don't think how common the use of the terms "greenfield" and "brownfield" is has anything to do with Australia vs. wherever, but more with common people vs. professional city planners. -- m.v.g., Cartinus _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
