Proposal:Green space

This proposal appears to be abandoned, in favour of Proposed features/Misc. urban open space (same wording. different tag)

Very often housing estates are punctuated by small areas of open grass, shrubs or small trees,or a dead end is formed by a significantly large road island, which is grassed. These don't really fall into a defined category like recreation_ground, village_green, park or common (and they are usually smaller). They are just breathing spaces in the urban environment.

It would be nice to have them rendered in green on a map.

Proposed by User:David.earl 13:10, 19 December 2006

• Currently I use leisure=park for this, but I am unhappy with it because they seem different. But what exactly would make it a park instead of a green space? Joto 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a difficult one isn't it? I'd go for a park being a combination of 1) size 2) some sort of formal layout 3) it has a sign or is locally known as a park. MikeCollinson 02:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't local governments know if it's an adopted park? I'm also curious about how small a bit of grass can get before people stop mapping it. I'm somewhat haphazardly doing these in residential areas with no rationale, except that sometimes I think it's quite sizeable and so I stick it in. TomChance 07:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, when do you stop tagging these bits of grass..? Both this tag, and the village green tag are basically the same thing. The few differences could be tagged additonally. Grass is almost the underlying thing if nothign else is there. (although rock is the real underlying thing). But if there is no road, no property border or track or footpath etc, then grass can just be expected. If its in a town and theres a fenced of area for the green/park/grass area, then mapping the fence would be enough I think. Ben. 04:38, 23 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to start putting in property borders? At the moment the reason I sometimes put grass areas in is because they'd be useful for navigation, and because they make the maps look prettier :) But I'm not sure why we need green_space, village_green, recreation_ground and other similar tags. With Mapnik at the moment simply giving them a tag pair like "landuse=grass" and "name=Village Green" would do the job. Do the different values imply anything other than labels? The only exceptional bits of grass I can think of are playing fields that will often be inside larger fields/parks/etc. and so need a slightly different colour, a border, or something else to make them stand out. Then we have official parks, if there is such a thing, commons (with special access rights), TomChance 10:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Are we going to start putting in property borders?", If you wish. I do where nessesery, such as in marking the edge of the grass area, with a wall. The area in the middle would then be landuse=grass as said, or just nothing at all. Additonal tags would sort out any rules, such as a tag for 'dog zone', 'picnic area', or a definate 'park' area. (Park being a heavily maintained area, tather than just mowed grass). Icons could seperate these apart. Having 3 differnt pre-defined definitions for an area of nothing seems pointless to me. Ben. 11:43 23 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)

• In Australian urban and semi-urban areas, there are many things called "Reserves", e.g. The Stan Bartley Reserve. These vary from areas that are quite clearly parks, to grassed areas with one or more sports pitches, to rough grass/bush/tree/wetland areas deliberately left to nature. They can be large. I've been using leisure=park for the last category but am also unhappy with it. David, as proposer, or others, do you see these as leisure=green_space? breathing spaces, yes, small, no. MikeCollinson 02:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I was saying landuse=green_space rather than leisure=green_space, because often they are bits in the middle of road islands that reallyhave no particular purpose, not built on, but they are big enough to be rendered in green. Consider this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?lat=52.21556839808944&lon=0.1653591049823968&zoom=17. Currently done as leisure=park but it isn't really a park:it is just a circle of houses on the outside with grass in the very large interior space that deserves to be rendered in green on the map. User:David.earl

• Not clear if voting is open on this. I am in the UK and have been using village_green so far but that is not really correct. Like the proposer describes, they are more chunks of maintained grass land in the midst of housing estates. Not sure if landuse=green_space or natural=grass is best but a consensus could be useful.--LeedsTracker 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting

• I approve this proposal. User:David.earl 19 Feb 2007
• I disapprove this proposal. If a tag is really needed, I think natural=grass would be better. Ben 01:06 20th February 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal, on the same grounds as Ben. --Hawke 05:44, 11 June 2007 (BST)

This proposal appears to be abandoned, in favour of Proposed features/Misc. urban open space (same wording. different tag)