Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by [email protected]:

> On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny      via Tagging wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by >> [email protected]>> :
>>
>>> "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes,          this 
>>> land might be "natural" now, including being "treed," but          I could 
>>> still build a patio and bbq there after perhaps          cutting down some 
>>> trees, it is my residential land and I am          allowed to do that, 
>>> meaning it has residential use, even if it          is "unimproved" 
>>> presently. 
>>>
>> It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.
>>
>
>
>
>
> I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for;      shade, to 
> sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think      about things. 
> People park their cars, caravans and boats under      them.
>
>
> They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my      residence. 
>
>
> If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will      grass and 
> flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped      as residential 
> landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous. 
>
>
>
>
>
>>> These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to          appear 
>>> to be removing property rights from residential          landowners (by 
>>> diminishing landuse=residential areas)
>>>
>> Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect        property 
>> rights and may remove them?
>> That is ridiculous.
>>
>>> but at the same time, significant portions of these areas          do 
>>> remain in a natural state, while distinctly and presently          "having" 
>>> residential landuse. 
>>>
>> For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a        clearly 
>> incorrect mapping.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that      does not 
> mean they are not parks because of the land cover. 
>
>
> I would contend similar consideration by held for residential      landuse. 
>
>
Yes, landuse=residential may include areas with tree, I fully agree here.

But "portions of these areas          do remain in a natural state" with 
residential status limited
solely to legal status (land ownership, legal right to build something there 
and start using
this land as landuse=residential) cases seem quite dubious to me.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to