Proposal talk:Landuse=governmental

Governmental vs Civic Admin / Public Administration

I agree that it would be useful to have an approved type of land use for the administrative offices of local, regional and national governments. The other option, using landuse=commercial with a subtag, seems inappropriate because "commercial" implies commerce, yet most government offices provide public services without fees or profit motive.

However, I'm not sure that "governmental" is the best value for the landuse key. In North America, it is somewhat common to talk about "government land" or more specifically, "Federal land," "State land", and "Municipal land". But the only uses of "governmental land use" I've found are in phrases talking about "governmental land use policy", "governmental land use regulations", and "governmental land use decision making". In these cases, the phrase is talking about governments regulating all types of land use, including commercial, retail, residential and industrial.

I think there would be a risk of mappers finding this tag in the editors and using it for all governnment-owned land, not just for administrative offices. In North America, and in many developing countries, the national or local government owns large areas of land, including rangeland, forests, transportation facilities, and military areas, in addition to land uses for government offices.

For these reasons, I believe the current tags landuse=civic_admin or landuse=public_administration are a little better. They are not perfect, because "civic" isn't precisely correct for land used for national or provincial government offices, but they are less ambiguous. If this proposal is going to use a new tag, it should include something about the administrative nature of the land, so that mappers are less likely to use the tag incorrectly for other types of government-owned land.--Jeisenbe (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback!

I'm aware of this risk and i was quite undecided between landuse=governmental and landuse=public_administration. public_administration isn't unproblematic too, because, if i'm not mistaken, legislature facilities (places where assembly/parliament/congress meets) and courts are another divisions of government and don't belong to the public administration. But dividing land used for governing would complicate mapping too much in my opinion.

Any more opinions on that point? I'd be fine with changing the tag to landuse=public_administration if other people think that this tag is better. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC) (copied from the e-mail to the tagging mailing list)

Public Service Facilities?

Resolved

In the proposal, it is stated that this tag will not be used for "Public service facilities"

What is the definition of a "public service facility" as opposed to "public administration offices?" For example, would the Department of Motor Vehicles be considered a public service, or an administrative office? What about the administrative headquarters of the Public Health Department? These offices combine some administrative features and some public service features.--Jeisenbe (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right, 'public service facility' was unclear. I was thinking of public service facilities that aren't directly involved in or responsible for governing or organising the country, state or municipality (or any other administrative division), but that have other purposes like educating people, caring for their health, offering them leisure activities etc. These should be excluded from landuse=governmental.

Consequently, the Public Health Department would be landuse=governmental, but not public health facilities like hospitals, clinics or doctor's practices.

I've updated the proposal page. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC) (copied from the e-mail to the tagging mailing list)

Thanks! I'd recommend adding some additional details and examples of Public Services. The previous proposal for civic_admin has a good example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Civic_admin#What_to_exclude_&_limitations --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Please excuse my late reply. I've made further improvements to the definition and differentiation. Is it better now? (Unfortunately i still haven't found a less ambiguous tag name.) Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tagging proposal is not able and should not demand changes in software

Resolved

"should be rendered by the standard tile layer" is unacceptable and misleading. Developers of software are not obligated to make changes as result of voting on OSM Wiki, tagging proposals are not rendering proposals. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, i've removed the section. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Current tagging overview is missing

I think that for proposal that want to introduce a new landuse overview of how matching areas are currently tagged would be useful. Is there currently no landuse tagging? Or maybe some landuse is currently used? Which one? Why it is considered as a wrong one? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've listed landuse=* keys that have been proposed or are in use under Rationale. Is this what you were looking for or should i extend it (and if so, how)? --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for list of areas that would be tagged with this landuse value and how they are tagged currently. In fact - it would be useful to tag some areas now to test whatever this tag definition works well Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, i'll add more real-world examples. :-) Not sure if the 'Current usage' section is of much use, though -- don't all new proposed tags have a usage of nearly zero? --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, is this what you were looking for? --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes - but is it possible to include also links to this objects/location? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. :-) --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I must say that at least for me this table is convincing and at least for now moved me from "New landuse value? Sounds like a bad idea" to "it seems like we need it" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad i could convince you. :-) --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

See also landuse=civic propal. I like it because it allow incremental mapping (if somebody doesn't known if police or court is under governmental or not, he is still able to add the main tag and somebody else 'll add the subtag Marc marc (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with landuse=civic is that civic means "relating to a city or town" and thus implies that the administration, government or services of a country, state or other administrative divisions is excluded. Maybe landuse=public_services were an option, but i'm not sure if this doesn't exclude the government. Otherwise i'd suggest community_protection for police and fire services. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think landuse=public_safety was suggested as an option for the emergency services in the civic proposal. Invidious (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned?

Hi, I think this proposal should be abandoned and marked as such.--PangoSE (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, why do you think that this proposal should be abandoned? –SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think this proposal should be abandoned, even though it's been a long time since last activity, plus the current usage of the value (taginfo) is only 24 uses. It's a really good proposal in my opinion for something that is needed. --Jimkats (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I think this kind of landuse is very useful, especially in China. --快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)