"Dave F." <[email protected]> writes: > A user has performed globally edit: > > "comment = remove leisure=recreation_ground where the more common > landuse=recreation_ground exists"
Automated edits without adequate discussion that are at all controversial should be immediately reverted, and then discussed. This is clearly somewhere between controversial and wrong. > The removal of duplicated tags is, of course, correct, however I was > surprised to see that landuse is being used (& is more popular) > instead of leisure: The tagging between landuser, landcover-type tags, and leisure is a bit of a mess. Arguably it needs some global cleaning up. But we're nowhere near consensus on bot eits. > Prescribed tags in editors: > > Potlatch2 - leisure > JOSM - landuse > Id - couldn't see one. > > My opinion is a recreation_ground can contain other land uses like > forest, grass, meadow etc. so leisure should be used. I'm guessing > this question will bring up discussion of the landcover tag > again. What was the conclusion of that from last time? The conclusion seems to be that landcover as a concept is arguably separate from landuse. But landuse=recreation_ground and leisure=recreation_ground don't have anything to do with landcover. I have been tagging landuse=conseration leisure=recreation_ground for parcels that are legally protected from development, when the primary purpose is to preserve them, but it's permissable/encourage for people to walk on them. For parcels which are not really for humans, I prefer landuse=conseration leisure=nature_reserve I admit this is a bit hackish. But it's not so wrong that an undiscussed bot edit is reasonable.
pgpFO0gVzgwjU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
