leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

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

leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Pee Wee

Hi all


I would like your opinion on the next issue.


On the Dutch forum (googletranslate) I started a thread about the tag leisure=garden for private front/back gardens. Reason was that I saw mappers using this for whole blocks of houses that were not publicly accessible. That usage seemed completely different from all the other leisure values.

In the first versions of the wiki page of leisure=garden there was no mentioning of private front/back gardens.  It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee) sometime additional tags like “access=private”  and “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible) should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that there are more objections to using this tag for private (non accessible) gardens.


 

My question to you experts are:

 

1.       Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the outcome?

2.       If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are partially/completely paved?)


 

(PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case someone wants to. )


Cheers

Peter (PeeWee32)


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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 12. Jul 2019, at 07:23, Pee Wee <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens


Frankly, I believe it is too late to question 2010 tagging decisions.
Residential is by far the most used garden type qualifier:

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Pee Wee
I understand but numbers don't always say much. A great part of this number is caused by an (afaik  undocumentend and highly arbitrary)  import in the city of Tilburg

Cheers
Peter

Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 08:18 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:


sent from a phone

On 12. Jul 2019, at 07:23, Pee Wee <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens


Frankly, I believe it is too late to question 2010 tagging decisions.
Residential is by far the most used garden type qualifier:

Cheers Martin 
_______________________________________________
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=garden for private front/back gardens

Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM Pee Wee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I understand but numbers don't always say much. A great part of this number is caused by an (afaik  undocumentend and highly arbitrary)  import in the city of Tilburg
>

and how many private, residential gardens are mapped (around the
world) without this type tag? This number is pretty hard to determine,
but should be taken into account if you want to change a definition
from 2010.

Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
No, we refine this with additional tags.
This method can be applied to private gardens as well.

regards
m

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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Pee Wee
I'm fine with leisure=garden for private/common/public gardens
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 07:24 schreef Pee Wee <[hidden email]>:

Hi all


I would like your opinion on the next issue.


On the Dutch forum (googletranslate) I started a thread about the tag leisure=garden for private front/back gardens. Reason was that I saw mappers using this for whole blocks of houses that were not publicly accessible. That usage seemed completely different from all the other leisure values.

In the first versions of the wiki page of leisure=garden there was no mentioning of private front/back gardens.  It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee) sometime additional tags like “access=private”  and “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible) should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that there are more objections to using this tag for private (non accessible) gardens.


 

My question to you experts are:

 

1.       Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the outcome?

2.       If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are partially/completely paved?)


 

(PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case someone wants to. )


Cheers

Peter (PeeWee32)

_______________________________________________
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=garden for private front/back gardens

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis


sent from a phone

> On 12. Jul 2019, at 09:12, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
> private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
> by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
> No, we refine this with additional tags.
> This method can be applied to private gardens as well.


For some features we do distinguish, for others not. For example a private bathroom, trash can or water tap would not be tagged like a publicly accessible one (we put generally more focus on usability/accessibility than on ownership).


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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Warin
On 12/07/19 17:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 12. Jul 2019, at 09:12, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
>> private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
>> by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
>> No, we refine this with additional tags.
>> This method can be applied to private gardens as well.
>
> For some features we do distinguish, for others not. For example a private bathroom, trash can or water tap would not be tagged like a publicly accessible one (we put generally more focus on usability/accessibility than on ownership).

Where are these private bathroom/s, trash can/s and water tap/s you mention Martin?

There are a few bathroom=* on the data base .. according to the values most of them are private but some are public.
No wiki page .. 12 users. They all appear to be toilets. So incorrectly tagged anyway - I expected a bath!!


I see no reason why 'private' things need another tag.

Private jetties get the same tag, private roads same tag ...


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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 08:13, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why would a private garden require a different key?

Indeed.  A private garden is often used for leisure and is a garden.  One might perhaps
argue for different tagging to describe a private garden used for growing vegetables and
which the owner derives no pleasure from but is forced to grow the vegetables from
poverty, but that is kind of unverifiable.

leisure=garden works for me.  It would be nice if access=private caused a slight difference
in rendering, but that is an argument that should take place elsewhere.

--
Paul


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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Warin



12 Jul 2019, 10:11 by [hidden email]:
On 12/07/19 17:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone
On 12. Jul 2019, at 09:12, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
No, we refine this with additional tags.
This method can be applied to private gardens as well.

For some features we do distinguish, for others not. For example a private bathroom, trash can or water tap would not be tagged like a publicly accessible one (we put generally more focus on usability/accessibility than on ownership).

Where are these private bathroom/s, trash can/s and water tap/s you mention Martin?
Public toilet: amenity=toilets
Private toilet: not tagged (so not tagged
like a public one)

I am unable to link to well tagged private
toilets as in this case private tagging
is to not map it.

There are some public toilets with restricted use
(for example toilets at university campus for use by students and faculty,
tagged access=customers).

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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Warin
On 12/07/19 19:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



12 Jul 2019, 10:11 by [hidden email]:
On 12/07/19 17:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone
On 12. Jul 2019, at 09:12, Marc Gemis [hidden email] wrote:

Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
No, we refine this with additional tags.
This method can be applied to private gardens as well.

For some features we do distinguish, for others not. For example a private bathroom, trash can or water tap would not be tagged like a publicly accessible one (we put generally more focus on usability/accessibility than on ownership).

Where are these private bathroom/s, trash can/s and water tap/s you mention Martin?
Public toilet: amenity=toilets
Private toilet: not tagged (so not tagged
like a public one)

I am unable to link to well tagged private
toilets as in this case private tagging
is to not map it.

A similar logic would have private roads not mapped. Yet they are.
Same for private buildings, farm yards, woods, beaches and so on.

There is a local yearly garden exhibition that opens up private gardens. Only some gardens and of those not every year. So it is not possible to state an 'opening' time, but it is possible to map them as leisure=garden, access=private.

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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Mateusz Konieczny-3



12 Jul 2019, 11:50 by [hidden email]:
On 12/07/19 19:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



12 Jul 2019, 10:11 by [hidden email]:
On 12/07/19 17:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone
On 12. Jul 2019, at 09:12, Marc Gemis [hidden email] wrote:

Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
No, we refine this with additional tags.
This method can be applied to private gardens as well.

For some features we do distinguish, for others not. For example a private bathroom, trash can or water tap would not be tagged like a publicly accessible one (we put generally more focus on usability/accessibility than on ownership).

Where are these private bathroom/s, trash can/s and water tap/s you mention Martin?
Public toilet: amenity=toilets
Private toilet: not tagged (so not tagged
like a public one)

I am unable to link to well tagged private
toilets as in this case private tagging
is to not map it.

A similar logic would have private roads not mapped. Yet they are.
Same for private buildings, farm yards, woods, beaches and so on. 
I am not arguing against mapping 
private gardens and other objects 
that you mentioned.

But mapping private bathrooms and
water taps is not welcome.

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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Pee Wee
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:23:01AM +0200, Pee Wee wrote:
> Hi all

> I would like your opinion on the next issue.

> meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from
> the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order
> to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee)
> sometime additional tags like “access=private”  and
> “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no
> additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible)
> should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that
> there are more objections

For me a leisure=* in OSM has some public usability assumption. Mapping
every little green strip as a leisure=garden i would consider a tagging
abuse.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Warin
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 10:51, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 12/07/19 19:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Public toilet: amenity=toilets
Private toilet: not tagged (so not tagged
like a public one)

I am unable to link to well tagged private
toilets as in this case private tagging
is to not map it.
A similar logic would have private roads not mapped. Yet they are.
Same for private buildings, farm yards, woods, beaches and so on.

I am happy with leisure=garden + access=private for private gardens.  An argument elsewhere
in the thread refers to the small size of some private gardens but I'd class that under "too small
to bother mapping" not "must not map because it's private."

Even so, I do not find that equating roads, gardens and toilets compelling.  Not as stated so far.
We map private roads and gardens because they are visible in aerial imagery and/or street
level imagery.  We don't do so because the general public can necessarily access them but
because they may be navigational landmarks.  Also, delivery drivers may make use of private
roads in order to deliver to the destination served by that road.  We do not map private
toilets because not only are they not accessible to the public but also because they are
not navigational landmarks.

Let's not go down the route of saying that because we map private X we can also map
private Y.  It's about more than just public/private.  It's also about visibility.

That said, I don't have any objection to a mapper adding his/her own private toilet just for
fun.  Not very useful to anyone, but I don't feel a need to invoke the mapping police on
anyone that does it.  Mapping somebody else's private toilet without permission is another
matter.  But it might be sensible if carto rendered private toilets VERY faintly. :)

--
Paul



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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Warin
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
On 12/07/19 21:00, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:23:01AM +0200, Pee Wee wrote:
>> Hi all
>> I would like your opinion on the next issue.
>> meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from
>> the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order
>> to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee)
>> sometime additional tags like “access=private”  and
>> “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no
>> additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible)
>> should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that
>> there are more objections
> For me a leisure=* in OSM has some public usability assumption. Mapping
> every little green strip as a leisure=garden i would consider a tagging
> abuse.

Some private gardens that front the street are publicly visible, I see no reason not to map them.

The 'usability' in this instance is visible and, sometimes,scents.


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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

voschix
I have tagged many planted centre pieces of roundabouts as leisure=garden, access=private in lack of better alternatives.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019, 02:18 Warin, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 12/07/19 21:00, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:23:01AM +0200, Pee Wee wrote:
>> Hi all
>> I would like your opinion on the next issue.
>> meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from
>> the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order
>> to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee)
>> sometime additional tags like “access=private”  and
>> “garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no
>> additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible)
>> should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that
>> there are more objections
> For me a leisure=* in OSM has some public usability assumption. Mapping
> every little green strip as a leisure=garden i would consider a tagging
> abuse.

Some private gardens that front the street are publicly visible, I see no reason not to map them.

The 'usability' in this instance is visible and, sometimes,scents.


_______________________________________________
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=garden for private front/back gardens

Tom Pfeifer
On 13.07.2019 09:35, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I have tagged many planted centre pieces of roundabouts as leisure=garden, access=private in lack of
> better alternatives.

Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout?
If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no be more appropriate?

tom

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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 13. Jul 2019, at 16:36, Tom Pfeifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout?
If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no be more appropriate?


it is often not accessible, because no crossings lead there and you are not allowed to stop in the roundabout. There are of course also a lot of examples of roundabouts with accessible centers, e.g. in Berlin:
or
or here in Rome:

pedestrians sometimes actually do cross roundabouts in a straight line, but it is similar to walking at a red light.

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 16:56 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone

On 13. Jul 2019, at 16:36, Tom Pfeifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout?
If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no be more appropriate?


it is often not accessible, because no crossings lead there and you are not allowed to stop in the roundabout. 

You can of course just walk across when there is a gap in the traffic, walking would be very restricted if you only crossed roads at crossings.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

voschix
I would not recommend to try to cross a roundabout in Italy like that for your own safety. I don't know if it is forbidden explicitly.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 19:56, Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 16:56 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone

On 13. Jul 2019, at 16:36, Tom Pfeifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why 'private' if it is a public roundabout?
If it not allowed to trample the flowers down, wouldn't access=no be more appropriate?


it is often not accessible, because no crossings lead there and you are not allowed to stop in the roundabout. 

You can of course just walk across when there is a gap in the traffic, walking would be very restricted if you only crossed roads at crossings.

Phil (trigpoint)


_______________________________________________
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=garden for private front/back gardens

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Warin
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:17:18AM +1000, Warin wrote:
> Some private gardens that front the street are publicly visible, I see
> no reason not to map them.
>
> The 'usability' in this instance is visible and, sometimes,scents.

The same reason i do not map my kitchen sink as a
natural=water/water=pond

Its not for the public leisure.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
12