On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Jason Cunningham <jamicu...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I think Brownfield would be useful for mapping current status of previously > developed land, not currently used, and where the future use is unknown or > not agreed upon.
Agreed. There are plenty of tracts of land you can see in aerial photos that have clearly had something previously (including things as mundane as car parking or sheds), but it would be difficult to know if there are actually plans for future development. > Greenfield...not sure about this one. I don't like the current OSM use. The > current use of mapping planning permission of land that has not been > developed seems bad practice. Planning Permission is often not acted upon, > and we should be mapping 'whats on the ground' or a status that affecting > the land (eg Nature Reserve). Planning Permission is doesn't impact the land > unless acted upon, in which case the land should be tagged > landuse=construction Also agreed. Although there are cases of green grass with big signs all around selling off house and land packages. Clearly something will be built. Does it matter that construction hasn't technically started yet? (IMHO, given the difficulties of keeping OSM totally up to date, not much...) Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
