Thank you for your considered reply. I think you make some sensible points and I think I now do mostly support your proposal. I apologise for writing only about the UK aspects because I really don't have enough knowledge about these features in other countries to comment. In the UK, these features are confusingly both descriptive terms and legal terms; something that may not look like a village green may be registered as one (and vice versa). I do think it would be helpful to differentiate these concepts, thus I support mapping the physical attributes (ie. what is visible on the ground). Legally registered village greens and common land could then be tagged using the designation tag in a similar manner to how UK Public Rights of Way network is mapped. I think I'll start a discussion on the UK mailing list regarding the recording of the legal aspect seperately as it would be a good thing to tag regardless of the outcome of this proposal.
I'm a bit sceptical that changing village green to village common would do anything to stop your blurred lines examples. Regards, Adam On 3 December 2017 at 00:06, Daniel Koć <daniel@koć.pl> wrote: > W dniu 03.12.2017 o 00:15, Adam Snape pisze: > > Yes, OSM is a global database, but that is not to say that >> country-specific feaures ought not to be explicitly tagged. OSm is - I >> think - a great means of recording such diversity. I don't particularly see >> a problem with tags being used to mean subtly different things in different >> countries as long as there is consistency within countries. I don't expect >> features tagged leisure=nature_reserve or highway=secondary in the UK to be >> very similar to similarly tagged features in Botswana. >> > > Using local tags when needed for locally specific objects is good, but > it's better if they can be described in a neutral way when possible. And > for example using "village green" in the city is not a subtly different, > but rather a common rough stretching the meaning just because it was there > (because of the UK roots of OSM). > > This is a great opportunity to migrate some old tags to something better > suited for a global project: > > 1. Of course "landuse=village_green" have some sense (like using a popular > term), but something like "landuse=village_common" would be even better at > the end of the day, because: > - this is more accurate description what such area is meant for (general > public area in a village) > - "green" might not be necessary there (like in the African village) and > it's easy to add this property as a separate tag when needed > - it would be universally usable and still true in UK, because in reality > it's not a UK-only type of object > - it's hard to know for a data consumer if "village green" is real or just > a result of blurring the lines > > 2. Definition of "leisure=common" shows that it's not about leisure only, > so it makes sense to: > - move it to landuse/leisure=recreation_ground if that's the real meaning > - move the rest to "landuse=common_ground" for example - or something > similar in the "landuse" namespace > - this would be also more accurate description and allows to have more > trust in the meaning of the tag for a given object > > Deprecation some tag schemes does not mean disregarding the existence or > importance of the objects they are applied to. It's about data quality and > usability. > > What do you think about it? > > -- > "My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple] > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
