leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

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

leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Marián Kyral
Hi,
recently was dropped [1] the leisure=common rendering from openstreetmap-carto as it is "misused" by mappers. A suggested replacements are: *leisure=park, landuse=grass and/or landuse=farmland*. But there are many places around, that are not official park and not grass as there are some trees as well. Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.

So question is, how to tag it? There is also tag landuse=village_green [2], but I don't like the word "village" there and as well, there are plans to remove it, because it has the same issue as leisure=common.
On landuse=village_green wiki, there is a nice sentence: *Such use of the tag is incorrect, and a better tagging for these situations needs to be defined.*

So is the right time to do it now? What tag/tags we should use for such pieces of green that are too small or to be a park, are not a garden and are public accessible.

What about e.g.: landuse=public_green? It could be also extended by tags like trees=yes, scrub=yes or public_green=grass / public_green=flowers.

What do you think? Some better idea?

Thanks,
Marián

[1] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c3e029b31e34c0cf1be2dda6f637
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green


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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Marián Kyral


What about e.g.: landuse=public_green? It could be also extended by tags like trees=yes, scrub=yes or public_green=grass / public_green=flowers.


One more thing: Should we use landuse there? As these areas are usually inside of landuse=residental? Maybe use leisure=public_green instead? 


Marián


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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Warin
In reply to this post by Marián Kyral
On 05/03/19 19:00, Marián Kyral wrote:
Hi,
recently was dropped [1] the leisure=common rendering from openstreetmap-carto as it is "misused" by mappers. A suggested replacements are: *leisure=park, landuse=grass and/or landuse=farmland*. But there are many places around, that are not official park and not grass as there are some trees as well. Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.

So question is, how to tag it? There is also tag landuse=village_green [2], but I don't like the word "village" there and as well, there are plans to remove it, because it has the same issue as leisure=common.
On landuse=village_green wiki, there is a nice sentence: *Such use of the tag is incorrect, and a better tagging for these situations needs to be defined.*

So is the right time to do it now? What tag/tags we should use for such pieces of green that are too small or to be a park, are not a garden and are public accessible.

What about e.g.: landuse=public_green? It could be also extended by tags like trees=yes, scrub=yes or public_green=grass / public_green=flowers.

Separate things...

Land use

verses

Land cover

Try not to mix them up.

Usually the cover  does not follow the 'use' 100% so map them individually, the tree area separate from grass, flowers, rock etc.
natural=wood for the tree area
natural=bare_rock for rocks
man_made=flower_bed for flowers

Grass is unfortunate in that most tag it as a 'landuse=grass' when it is actually 'landcover=grass'. I use both tags, one for the render the other for clarity.
Concrete has no primary tag .. so I'd use landcover=concrete, it will not render. If it is a pedestrian way then tag the area as highway=pedestrian, surface=concrete. 

Public? That is an access thing ... and as everyone has access there is no need to add a tag access=* - so leave it off and be happy.

Now the problem of land use.
A small areas in the city between apartment buildings is not a 'common'. Nor a 'park'.
I would simply say it is part of the residential area .. and leave it at that. So landuse=residential if it is not already part of a greater landuse=residential area.

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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Alessandro Sarretta
In reply to this post by Marián Kyral
On 05/03/19 09:50, Marián Kyral wrote:


What about e.g.: landuse=public_green? It could be also extended by tags like trees=yes, scrub=yes or public_green=grass / public_green=flowers.


One more thing: Should we use landuse there? As these areas are usually inside of landuse=residental? Maybe use leisure=public_green instead?

I would suggest to use landcover=grass and maybe access=yes

m2c

Ale
 
--

Alessandro Sarretta

skype/twitter: alesarrett
Web: ilsarrett.wordpress.com

Research information:


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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Marián Kyral
In reply to this post by Warin



Usually the cover  does not follow the 'use' 100% so map them individually, the tree area separate from grass, flowers, rock etc.
natural=wood for the tree area
natural=bare_rock for rocks
man_made=flower_bed for flowers


It seems like landuse=flowerbed is used more often even it is not approved nor rendered: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flowerbed


Marián





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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Marián Kyral

Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by [hidden email]:
Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.
So far I usually tagged such places as follows:

Made sure that it is within landuse=residential (as it is a residential area)
Mapped physical features (leisure=playground, natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway etc)

Maybe one may also add access tag to landuse=residential to tag it as a public?
AFAIK this is not commonly done at this moment, but I see nothing wrong with it.

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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Sergio Manzi

Hi!

On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by [hidden email]:
Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.
So far I usually tagged such places as follows:

Made sure that it is within landuse=residential (as it is a residential area)
Mapped physical features (leisure=playground, natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway etc)

Is it landuse=grass or landcover=grass? I tend to agree with Alessandro Sarretta who uses landcover...

I also have doubts about leisure=playground as it is not a physical feature but it describe the usage done of that space, not its characteristics. Also that very same space could be used for different things (fairs, concerts, rallies, etc.) at different times...

TBH I don't have an answer to the problem, but I tend to agree that we should, A) describe the physical characteristics of the place, and, B) describe the fact that the place is of public interest...


Maybe one may also add access tag to landuse=residential to tag it as a public?
AFAIK this is not commonly done at this moment, but I see nothing wrong with it.

Sergio


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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Sergio Manzi

Sorry, my answer was meant to regard the "common replacement" (topic of the thread) more than the situation described by Marián for which "playground" is probably OK...

On 2019-03-05 11:48, Sergio Manzi wrote:

Hi!

On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by [hidden email]:
Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.
So far I usually tagged such places as follows:

Made sure that it is within landuse=residential (as it is a residential area)
Mapped physical features (leisure=playground, natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway etc)

Is it landuse=grass or landcover=grass? I tend to agree with Alessandro Sarretta who uses landcover...

I also have doubts about leisure=playground as it is not a physical feature but it describe the usage done of that space, not its characteristics. Also that very same space could be used for different things (fairs, concerts, rallies, etc.) at different times...

TBH I don't have an answer to the problem, but I tend to agree that we should, A) describe the physical characteristics of the place, and, B) describe the fact that the place is of public interest...


Maybe one may also add access tag to landuse=residential to tag it as a public?
AFAIK this is not commonly done at this moment, but I see nothing wrong with it.

Sergio


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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi



Mar 5, 2019, 11:48 AM by [hidden email]:

Hi!

On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by [hidden email]:
Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.
So far I usually tagged such places as follows:

Made sure that it is within landuse=residential (as it is a residential area)
Mapped physical features (leisure=playground, natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway etc)

Is it landuse=grass or landcover=grass? I tend to agree with Alessandro Sarretta who uses landcover...

landcover=grass also would be fine in this case, but meaning of this tags is the same and
landuse=grass is more popular

I also have doubts about leisure=playground as it is not a physical feature but it describe the usage done of that space, not its characteristics.

I use leisure=playground solely for cases where it clearly describes a physical feature
I am not advocating for entire to be tagged as playground, just parts that are playgrounds
(the same with natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway - such things
should be tagged only where this features are)
Also that very same space could be used for different things (fairs, concerts, rallies, etc.) at different times...
Sounds like landuse=recreation_ground or leisure=park to me.


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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Marián Kyral





Mar 5, 2019, 11:48 AM by [hidden email]:

Hi!

On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by [hidden email]:
Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.
So far I usually tagged such places as follows:

Made sure that it is within landuse=residential (as it is a residential area)
Mapped physical features (leisure=playground, natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway etc)

Is it landuse=grass or landcover=grass? I tend to agree with Alessandro Sarretta who uses landcover...

landcover=grass also would be fine in this case, but meaning of this tags is the same and
landuse=grass is more popular


landcover=grass - still not rendered: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402959582

landuse=grass -  means that there will be landuse (grass) on landuse (residental). Is this OK? I'm not sure If I want to create a lots of multipolygons because of this.

Marián


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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-05 12:48, Marián Kyral wrote:





Mar 5, 2019, 11:48 AM by [hidden email]:

Hi!

On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by [hidden email]:
Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.
So far I usually tagged such places as follows:

Made sure that it is within landuse=residential (as it is a residential area)
Mapped physical features (leisure=playground, natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway etc)

Is it landuse=grass or landcover=grass? I tend to agree with Alessandro Sarretta who uses landcover...

landcover=grass also would be fine in this case, but meaning of this tags is the same and
landuse=grass is more popular


landcover=grass - still not rendered: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402959582


Thanks for hinting about landcover=grass not being rendered (I guess we should open a Github issue for that if one doesn't exist already...).


landuse=grass -  means that there will be landuse (grass) on landuse (residental). Is this OK? I'm not sure If I want to create a lots of multipolygons because of this.


As I already mentioned in a different context, I think the correct technique would be to be to just draw one multipolygon (the "main" one, probably tagged with landuse=residential in this case), and then create a new relation, containing just the "main" multipolygon, and tag that relation with the secondary landuse.


Marián



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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Marián Kyral



Mar 5, 2019, 12:48 PM by [hidden email]:
landuse=grass -  means that there will be landuse (grass) on landuse (residental). Is this OK?
Perfectly fine. If something is both grass and residential area then this tagging is perfectly fine.

In the same way as forested industrial area may be within two landuse=* areas or
forested residential areas may be withing two landuse areas.

With landuse=recreation_ground we may have even place that belong to three landuse=* areas
at once :)

----

In the same way we may have

natural=cave_entrance node
in
natural=water area
in
natural=sinkhole area

Something similar should be possible also with amenity and leisure tags.

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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Marián Kyral

On 05/03/2019 11:48, Marián Kyral wrote:
> landuse=grass -  means that there will be landuse (grass) on landuse
> (residental). Is this OK? I'm not sure If I want to create a lots of
> multipolygons because of this.
>
>
Yes, renderers normally do sane things in cases such as this.  In any
case the actual OSM tag is irrelevant by the time it gets to the
renderer, so landuse vs landcover makes no difference if the renderer
handles both.

What would be a problem would be if anyone were to assume that "every
place is part of one and only one landuse polygon" but that isn't the
case for OSM now anyway.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Peter Elderson
Landcover now has about 170 000 usage count.

Still growing rapidly despite not yet being rendered on OSM Carto. 

I would say that is enough reason to start renderin landcover on OSM Carto and other renderings. 
Once it renders, usage of landcover=[trees|grass|scrub] will grow even faster. Other values are mentioned less often, these three would do nicely for now.

Many small areas of grass, trees and scrub within residential areas can be tagged as landcover patches, without breaking up the landuse or tagging landuse over landuse.  

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 5 mrt. 2019 om 13:08 schreef Andy Townsend <[hidden email]>:

On 05/03/2019 11:48, Marián Kyral wrote:
> landuse=grass -  means that there will be landuse (grass) on landuse
> (residental). Is this OK? I'm not sure If I want to create a lots of
> multipolygons because of this.
>
>
Yes, renderers normally do sane things in cases such as this.  In any
case the actual OSM tag is irrelevant by the time it gets to the
renderer, so landuse vs landcover makes no difference if the renderer
handles both.

What would be a problem would be if anyone were to assume that "every
place is part of one and only one landuse polygon" but that isn't the
case for OSM now anyway.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
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: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Mateusz Konieczny-3
Mar 5, 2019, 1:47 PM by [hidden email]:
Landcover now has about 170 000 usage count.

Still growing rapidly despite not yet being rendered on OSM Carto. 

I would say that is enough reason to start renderin landcover on OSM Carto and other renderings. 
Just usage count is generally not enough to render anything anywhere.

Is it actually used by mappers or blindly added by botlike edits to existing landuse=forest/natural=wood?

But such rendering discussion is offtopic here - please report and discuss it rather on issue trackers of
specific renderings (open a new issue or comment in existing one if someone created one already).

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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Marián Kyral
Mar 5, 2019, 2:37 PM by [hidden email]:
Mar 5, 2019, 1:47 PM by [hidden email]:
Landcover now has about 170 000 usage count.

Still growing rapidly despite not yet being rendered on OSM Carto. 

I would say that is enough reason to start renderin landcover on OSM Carto and other renderings. 
Just usage count is generally not enough to render anything anywhere.

Is it actually used by mappers or blindly added by botlike edits to existing landuse=forest/natural=wood?

But such rendering discussion is offtopic here - please report and discuss it rather on issue trackers of
specific renderings (open a new issue or comment in existing one if someone created one already).
For OSM Carto I posted comment with specific topics for research:

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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 21:36, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sounds like landuse=recreation_ground or leisure=park to me.

Yep, I'd also suggest =recreation_ground.

I've just tried & it renders over the top of residential area, so it will appear as a lighter patch of green in between your buildings, & can have things such as playgrounds or basketball hoops included inside it.

 Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Joseph Eisenberg
over the top of residential area, so it will appear as a lighter patch of green in between your buildings, & can have things such as playgrounds or basketball hoops included inside it.

This is not the original meaning of “Recreation Ground” in British English. A recreation ground in England is like a large area used for sports and games. It’s not just a playground or basketball court or patch of grass in a residential area

But I admit it has been used for many other things


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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Warin
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On 05/03/19 22:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



Mar 5, 2019, 11:48 AM by [hidden email]:

Hi!

On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by [hidden email]:
Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible for everoyne. So we can say it is a *public* or *common* green.
So far I usually tagged such places as follows:

Made sure that it is within landuse=residential (as it is a residential area)
Mapped physical features (leisure=playground, natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway etc)

Is it landuse=grass or landcover=grass? I tend to agree with Alessandro Sarretta who uses landcover...

landcover=grass also would be fine in this case, but meaning of this tags is the same and
landuse=grass is more popular

I also have doubts about leisure=playground as it is not a physical feature but it describe the usage done of that space, not its characteristics.

I use leisure=playground solely for cases where it clearly describes a physical feature
I am not advocating for entire to be tagged as playground, just parts that are playgrounds
(the same with natural=tree, landuse=grass, highway=footway - such things
should be tagged only where this features are)
Also that very same space could be used for different things (fairs, concerts, rallies, etc.) at different times...
Sounds like landuse=recreation_ground or leisure=park to me.


On 06/03/19 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 21:36, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sounds like landuse=recreation_ground or leisure=park to me.

Yep, I'd also suggest =recreation_ground.

Could be used????
That does not mean they are used as a recreation ground. Only  could.
They could be used to land a helicopter too .. would you map it as a helipad too???

Map what you know, trees grass... leave 'could' for someone that knows?



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

Re: leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Marián Kyral
leisure=common seems wrong for two reasons:

  the original notion of town common was land that could be used by all
  and was owned by the town or somehow public.   A bit of land that is
  grass in an urban area does not fit this.

  town commons were about grazing or perhaps a meeting place; calling
  them leisure seems very odd

Agreed with others that if it's just grass then just use landcover.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12