Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Tagging mailing list
In 2017 [1] I posted here about the use of the landuse=village_green tagging.
Mainly because it was used against it's definition, which is:

"A village green is a distinctive part of a village centre. It's an area of common land (usually grass but may also be a lake), in the centre of a village (quintessentially English - defined separately from 'common land' under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and the Commons Act 2006)."

The wiki also has 2 additional uses:

"In Spain the tag has been used consensually to map Paseos: often rather different in appearance to English village greens, but sharing the functional purpose of a common shared space for inhabitants and their activities."

"The German page compares such spaces with the (de)Dorfanger in the East and with the (de)Brink in the Northwest of Central Europa."

------

Because I found out that the tag is greatly misused (mainly to tag all sorts of grass in villages and along highways), I did an extended research to get more details about this type of use.
My research is based on the OSM dataset of 14 july 2019.

The total number of tags for landuse=village_green is: 91645
I then took a selection of 22 countries  (listed below [3], based on the worldwide use on the taginfo map) and compared the uses per country to its use in the UK, because that country seems to be the main reason for the existence of this tag.

In those 22 countries the tag is used 55721 times and there are 5569 unique mappers responsible for using it.

I was surprised to see that in the country where I live, the Netherlands, the tag was used 260% more than in the UK.
Given the original definition that a Village Green is a "distinctive part of a village centre", you could expect in the Netherlands (based on the number of cities/towns/villages where each of those had indeed a Village Green) to find at most 2440 Village Greens. Where, then, are the 2691 others located??

And what about the other countries?
I started first by randomly (worldwide, with the help of overpass) looking at the map to see what people had marked with the tag, but later created a database application which allowed me to load faster the data of the map and inspect it.
My strategy was this:
For each of the 22 countries in my list, I sorted on changeset number to have the data in oldest-newest format. Interesting to see that its first use (12 years ago) wasn't in the UK but in Germany, where the tag is anyway used more than in any other country. The most recent use was 4 days ago.
I took the two oldest uses, the two most recent uses and one in the middle, to create a set (of 110 changesets) for visual inspection of the tag on the map.
The result (based on my earlier look at its use) didn't surprise me at all: 65% of the landuse=village_green tag is NOT used according to the definition!
Because I first couldn't believe the result, I started again, but now taking only one country and visited 20 randomly changesets. That made things worse: sometimes (by being very liberal in my judgement of what a village green could be, even accepting a small area of grass somewehere around the village center) the misuse raised to 80%!

What can we conclude from this?
In the wiki talk-page [2] I already announced this problem and suggested to adapt the wiki to allow for different uses, based on consensus reached per country. We do that already for Spain and Germany, although that use is more in line with the original use. What I see now is a competely different use.

The most frequent (ab)use now are all areas covered with grass (anywhere in a village), the centers of roundabouts, along stretches of highways, and the kind of "green" that you see on the photos in the wiki.
This wrong use is understandable: the word "village" and the word "green" both lead - for those not being native English speakers nor reading the wiki nor knowing anything about the historical context - to using it for the situations I mentioned above.

There are of course more occurences of faulty tags for a given situation, but not to the extent we see with the landuse=village_green tag.

The number of Village Greens is bound to some upper limit, someday we have all of them in OSM, but then people will still use that tag (as they do now) because it fits their definition, neglecting the wiki.
The situation that we have now: mappers are using a key-value pair (landuse=village_green) for tagging landuse that is not supposed to be tagged that way in at least 65% of the cases I investigated.
In the future that number will rise to the point where almost all use of landuse=village_green is wrong.

Does this situation need our attention? And if so, how do we deal with it?


As a side note it is interesting to see that the village_green taging was approved [4] in 2006 by two votes in favor and none against!
 
Marc Zoutendijk
-------------

Links:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/village_green

[3] Selected countries for landuse=village_green

1 Colombia 59
2 Argentina 114
3 Ireland 178
4 Denmark 180
5 India 219
6 Japan 241
7 Greece 265
8 China 293
9 Turkey 329
10 Chili 544
11 Russia 667
12 Italy 1008
13 USA 1438 (5535 total use of countries less than UK)

14 UK 1960

15 Austria 2173
16 Belgium 2614
17 Spain 2856
18 Brazil 2940
19 Netherlands 5131
20 France 6867
21 Poland 9790
22 Germany 15855 (48226 total use of countries more than UK)

Total 55721


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

marc marc
The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag
- green area: maybe landcover=greenery could be appropriate,
but if there is no rendering on osm-carto, let's not be surprised
that people are very creative when they want to have a graphic result
of their contribution.
- landuse: residential ? recreational ? a leisure=* ?
- official classification and/or owner: designation=village_green ?
designation==common ? owner:type=public?
- the right of access: access
other ?

Le 18.07.19 à 15:40, Marc Zoutendijk via Tagging a écrit :

> In 2017 [1] I posted here about the use of the landuse=village_green tagging.
> Mainly because it was used against it's definition, which is:
>
> "A village green is a distinctive part of a village centre. It's an area of common land (usually grass but may also be a lake), in the centre of a village (quintessentially English - defined separately from 'common land' under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and the Commons Act 2006)."
>
> The wiki also has 2 additional uses:
>
> "In Spain the tag has been used consensually to map Paseos: often rather different in appearance to English village greens, but sharing the functional purpose of a common shared space for inhabitants and their activities."
>
> "The German page compares such spaces with the (de)Dorfanger in the East and with the (de)Brink in the Northwest of Central Europa."
>
> ------
>
> Because I found out that the tag is greatly misused (mainly to tag all sorts of grass in villages and along highways), I did an extended research to get more details about this type of use.
> My research is based on the OSM dataset of 14 july 2019.
>
> The total number of tags for landuse=village_green is: 91645
> I then took a selection of 22 countries  (listed below [3], based on the worldwide use on the taginfo map) and compared the uses per country to its use in the UK, because that country seems to be the main reason for the existence of this tag.
>
> In those 22 countries the tag is used 55721 times and there are 5569 unique mappers responsible for using it.
>
> I was surprised to see that in the country where I live, the Netherlands, the tag was used 260% more than in the UK.
> Given the original definition that a Village Green is a "distinctive part of a village centre", you could expect in the Netherlands (based on the number of cities/towns/villages where each of those had indeed a Village Green) to find at most 2440 Village Greens. Where, then, are the 2691 others located??
>
> And what about the other countries?
> I started first by randomly (worldwide, with the help of overpass) looking at the map to see what people had marked with the tag, but later created a database application which allowed me to load faster the data of the map and inspect it.
> My strategy was this:
> For each of the 22 countries in my list, I sorted on changeset number to have the data in oldest-newest format. Interesting to see that its first use (12 years ago) wasn't in the UK but in Germany, where the tag is anyway used more than in any other country. The most recent use was 4 days ago.
> I took the two oldest uses, the two most recent uses and one in the middle, to create a set (of 110 changesets) for visual inspection of the tag on the map.
> The result (based on my earlier look at its use) didn't surprise me at all: 65% of the landuse=village_green tag is NOT used according to the definition!
> Because I first couldn't believe the result, I started again, but now taking only one country and visited 20 randomly changesets. That made things worse: sometimes (by being very liberal in my judgement of what a village green could be, even accepting a small area of grass somewehere around the village center) the misuse raised to 80%!
>
> What can we conclude from this?
> In the wiki talk-page [2] I already announced this problem and suggested to adapt the wiki to allow for different uses, based on consensus reached per country. We do that already for Spain and Germany, although that use is more in line with the original use. What I see now is a competely different use.
>
> The most frequent (ab)use now are all areas covered with grass (anywhere in a village), the centers of roundabouts, along stretches of highways, and the kind of "green" that you see on the photos in the wiki.
> This wrong use is understandable: the word "village" and the word "green" both lead - for those not being native English speakers nor reading the wiki nor knowing anything about the historical context - to using it for the situations I mentioned above.
>
> There are of course more occurences of faulty tags for a given situation, but not to the extent we see with the landuse=village_green tag.
>
> The number of Village Greens is bound to some upper limit, someday we have all of them in OSM, but then people will still use that tag (as they do now) because it fits their definition, neglecting the wiki.
> The situation that we have now: mappers are using a key-value pair (landuse=village_green) for tagging landuse that is not supposed to be tagged that way in at least 65% of the cases I investigated.
> In the future that number will rise to the point where almost all use of landuse=village_green is wrong.
>
> Does this situation need our attention? And if so, how do we deal with it?
>
>
> As a side note it is interesting to see that the village_green taging was approved [4] in 2006 by two votes in favor and none against!
>  
> Marc Zoutendijk
> -------------
>
> Links:
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green
> [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/village_green
>
> [3] Selected countries for landuse=village_green
>
> 1 Colombia 59
> 2 Argentina 114
> 3 Ireland 178
> 4 Denmark 180
> 5 India 219
> 6 Japan 241
> 7 Greece 265
> 8 China 293
> 9 Turkey 329
> 10 Chili 544
> 11 Russia 667
> 12 Italy 1008
> 13 USA 1438 (5535 total use of countries less than UK)
>
> 14 UK 1960
>
> 15 Austria 2173
> 16 Belgium 2614
> 17 Spain 2856
> 18 Brazil 2940
> 19 Netherlands 5131
> 20 France 6867
> 21 Poland 9790
> 22 Germany 15855 (48226 total use of countries more than UK)
>
> Total 55721
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Kevin Kenny-3
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
> this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
> by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag

landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
greens.

If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
green is likely still there.)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Peter Elderson
In Nederland there are many of village_green like areas, used for community events, but without a formal status. I would support tagging these as village_green. Larger cities tend to have several of these areas, often because villages have been incorporated but the central area has retained its function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the countries that already do this.  

I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green. It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a clear convention. 

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 18 jul. 2019 om 23:31 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
> this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
> by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag

landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
greens.

If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
green is likely still there.)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Warin
 As Kevin Kenny says.

The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.

And this predominately is because of the tag landuse=grass.
While this exists OSM can expect the key 'landuse' to be used (misused) for land covers of all descriptions.

If the key 'landuse' is only used for the human use of the land - free of any hint of the cover then there may be some hope of resolving 'village_green'. 
In Australia there is the 'village common' - land held for common use, this might get away form the 'green' aspect of grass. The rendering colour could also be closer to that of schools and hospitals, again away from the colour green.


On 19/07/19 07:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
In Nederland there are many of village_green like areas, used for community events, but without a formal status. I would support tagging these as village_green. Larger cities tend to have several of these areas, often because villages have been incorporated but the central area has retained its function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the countries that already do this.  

I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green. It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a clear convention. 

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 18 jul. 2019 om 23:31 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
> this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
> by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag

landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
greens.

If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
green is likely still there.)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Mateusz Konieczny-3

19 Jul 2019, 00:41 by [hidden email]:
The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.
For various reasons meaning of word used as key is not strictly limiting
values used with it.

landuse=grass, amenity=prison, highway=path, natural=water for man made reservoirs,
natural=wood for areas heavily influenced by people[1] - list is long.

keys of tags are not working in way that some people would like, it does not mean that
there is some misuse

[1] basically any natural=wood in Europe is heavily influenced by people


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Warin
Hm.. village_common still says village, where often these areas are no longer in a village.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 00:42 schreef Warin <[hidden email]>:
 As Kevin Kenny says.

The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.

And this predominately is because of the tag landuse=grass.
While this exists OSM can expect the key 'landuse' to be used (misused) for land covers of all descriptions.

If the key 'landuse' is only used for the human use of the land - free of any hint of the cover then there may be some hope of resolving 'village_green'. 
In Australia there is the 'village common' - land held for common use, this might get away form the 'green' aspect of grass. The rendering colour could also be closer to that of schools and hospitals, again away from the colour green.


On 19/07/19 07:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
In Nederland there are many of village_green like areas, used for community events, but without a formal status. I would support tagging these as village_green. Larger cities tend to have several of these areas, often because villages have been incorporated but the central area has retained its function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the countries that already do this.  

I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green. It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a clear convention. 

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 18 jul. 2019 om 23:31 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
> this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
> by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag

landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
greens.

If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
green is likely still there.)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Warin
I think they are at least close to the village, if not within it, in the UK and Australia.

On 19/07/19 16:04, Peter Elderson wrote:
Hm.. village_common still says village, where often these areas are no longer in a village.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 00:42 schreef Warin <[hidden email]>:
 As Kevin Kenny says.

The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.

And this predominately is because of the tag landuse=grass.
While this exists OSM can expect the key 'landuse' to be used (misused) for land covers of all descriptions.

If the key 'landuse' is only used for the human use of the land - free of any hint of the cover then there may be some hope of resolving 'village_green'. 
In Australia there is the 'village common' - land held for common use, this might get away form the 'green' aspect of grass. The rendering colour could also be closer to that of schools and hospitals, again away from the colour green.


On 19/07/19 07:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
In Nederland there are many of village_green like areas, used for community events, but without a formal status. I would support tagging these as village_green. Larger cities tend to have several of these areas, often because villages have been incorporated but the central area has retained its function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the countries that already do this.  

I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green. It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a clear convention. 

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 18 jul. 2019 om 23:31 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
> this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
> by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag

landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
greens.

If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
green is likely still there.)



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Kevin Kenny-3
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:38 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think they are at least close to the village, if not within it, in the UK and Australia.

I'm not sure, but I think Peter is talking about the case where the
village has grown to be a city, or been engulfed as a suburb of a
neighbouring community.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Warin
But isn't the main characteristic of a village green / village common
that is is a rather large, open area ?  I am thinking of a large grass
field in the centre of the town, but it could probably be paved as
well (or sand or ...)
OTOH The use of landcover=greenery is meant for "small" patches of
bushes / flowers/ trees/ grass that you find in and out of towns.

m.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think they are at least close to the village, if not within it, in the UK and Australia.
>
> On 19/07/19 16:04, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Hm.. village_common still says village, where often these areas are no longer in a village.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 00:42 schreef Warin <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>  As Kevin Kenny says.
>>
>> The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.
>>
>> And this predominately is because of the tag landuse=grass.
>> While this exists OSM can expect the key 'landuse' to be used (misused) for land covers of all descriptions.
>>
>> If the key 'landuse' is only used for the human use of the land - free of any hint of the cover then there may be some hope of resolving 'village_green'.
>> In Australia there is the 'village common' - land held for common use, this might get away form the 'green' aspect of grass. The rendering colour could also be closer to that of schools and hospitals, again away from the colour green.
>>
>>
>> On 19/07/19 07:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>
>> In Nederland there are many of village_green like areas, used for community events, but without a formal status. I would support tagging these as village_green. Larger cities tend to have several of these areas, often because villages have been incorporated but the central area has retained its function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the countries that already do this.
>>
>> I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green. It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a clear convention.
>>
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>
>>
>> Op do 18 jul. 2019 om 23:31 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
>>> > this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
>>> > by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag
>>>
>>> landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
>>> a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
>>> greens.
>>>
>>> If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
>>> that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
>>> villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
>>> England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
>>> church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
>>> buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
>>> green is likely still there.)
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Peter Elderson
I would say some indication of the purpose of the terrain should be present. E.g. Power infra, lineage, a stage area, signs, lots of things can indicate that the area is often used and/or dedicated to a variety of events. 

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 15:21 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
But isn't the main characteristic of a village green / village common
that is is a rather large, open area ?  I am thinking of a large grass
field in the centre of the town, but it could probably be paved as
well (or sand or ...)
 
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

Warin
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
On 19/07/19 23:19, Marc Gemis wrote:
> But isn't the main characteristic of a village green / village common
> that is is a rather large, open area ?

Large? No. No requirement for 'large' whatever that may mean.

Open? Yes, in that people/animals can gather together but it could have trees as people/animals can gather under those too.


> I am thinking of a large grass
> field in the centre of the town, but it could probably be paved as
> well (or sand or ...)
> OTOH The use of landcover=greenery is meant for "small" patches of
> bushes / flowers/ trees/ grass that you find in and out of towns.
>
> m.
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I think they are at least close to the village, if not within it, in the UK and Australia.
>>
>> On 19/07/19 16:04, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>
>> Hm.. village_common still says village, where often these areas are no longer in a village.
>>
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>
>>
>> Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 00:42 schreef Warin <[hidden email]>:
>>>   As Kevin Kenny says.
>>>
>>> The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.
>>>
>>> And this predominately is because of the tag landuse=grass.
>>> While this exists OSM can expect the key 'landuse' to be used (misused) for land covers of all descriptions.
>>>
>>> If the key 'landuse' is only used for the human use of the land - free of any hint of the cover then there may be some hope of resolving 'village_green'.
>>> In Australia there is the 'village common' - land held for common use, this might get away form the 'green' aspect of grass. The rendering colour could also be closer to that of schools and hospitals, again away from the colour green.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/07/19 07:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>>
>>> In Nederland there are many of village_green like areas, used for community events, but without a formal status. I would support tagging these as village_green. Larger cities tend to have several of these areas, often because villages have been incorporated but the central area has retained its function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the countries that already do this.
>>>
>>> I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green. It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a clear convention.
>>>
>>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>>
>>>
>>> Op do 18 jul. 2019 om 23:31 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
>>>>> this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
>>>>> by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag
>>>> landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
>>>> a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
>>>> greens.
>>>>
>>>> If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
>>>> that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
>>>> villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
>>>> England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
>>>> church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
>>>> buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
>>>> green is likely still there.)
>>>>
>>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging