Proposal talk:Residential=gated

Discuss please! For reference there is also some discussion in the OLD 2010 proposal page.

Current usage

Two questions:

1) how much is the tag used at present

2) what are the current use cases for tagging nodes/ways/relations?

--Nfgusedautoparts (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nfgusedautoparts -- I already added the statistics on the main page to answer question 1. Please have a look at the "taginfo" boxes embedded on the proposal page. For question 2, if you're asking why I suggested it applies to node/area/relation then I guess it's the usual answer: an area is probably the main way to tag these things, although some people may use a simple node for low-resolution tagging ideally to be improved later, and multipolygon relations may be needed for shapes that can't be expressed with a single way.--Danstowell (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

not a subtype of a landuse

IMHO a gated community is much more than a residential landuse, very often you will have other landuses there as well (just like any other village). I would see this orthogonal to landuse and use a settlement object (something with a tag place=* with values like hamlet, village or if part of another settlement neighbourhood or suburb) as an area and add an attribute for the restricted access (if you don't like access=private this could also be a new tag). Typically I'd expect a fenced (or walled or both) area (linear feature, closed) and then a multipolygon relation with these barrier-ways as outer members. This multipolygon relation would get the tags to describe the area. --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comment about "just like any other village". We often tag villages using a landuse=residential covering the whole village, don't we? We certainly do it HOT aerial mapping, and I think we often do in local mapping too. The wiki page for landuse=residential emphasises that it's OK to have an occasional shop or suchlike inside the area. As I say though, I wrote this proposal based on existing use, and I don't really mind. So Dieterdreist you might suggest something like place=gated_community instead? Does anyone have any further thoughts on whether place=* would seem better than landuse=*?--Danstowell (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I found one instance of place=neighbourhood + neighbourhood=gated_community - yet another option! :) --Danstowell (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that gated-ness is orthogonal to landuse, but since the proposal is not "landuse=gated",but "residential=gated", it is perfectly fine. Although I would prefer "residential=gated_community". The subtyping of residential makes sense to me since (to me) gated communities only exist where the landuse is residential. A "gated community" is indeed a social-use contract on the area, because it arises from more than just a gate: it has surveillance, rules, expectations etc.

I disagree with the use of gatedness on non-landuse=residential objects, and thus the counter-proposal of "gated_community=yes". My disagreement is because the use of "gated_community=yes" on non-residential areas would dilute the modern meaning of "gated community"; for example say you tagged a town, didn't you mean a walled city? or you tagged a building (a fortress?) or a camping ground (hmm). None of those objects would be what I would think of when I hear the term "gated community". Even using the simpler "gated=yes" tag is problematic. We already have "barrier=*" tags for physical gates. But perhaps a much broader tag, e.g. "defended=*" could fill its place. That would be more flexible than "gated_community=yes".

Anyway, in the regions with which I am familiar, it is residential areas alone that describe themselves as "gated communities" and thus there is a practical mapping value for me in the availability of such a clear tag.

The only concern I might have with the "residential=gated" proposal is if there were other residential=* tags that would conflict with "gated". I am aware of residential=rural & residential=urban tags, but they are a mistake, and should be replaced by a verifiable tag construction like residential:house_density=* or somesuch.

Also, as I mentioned before, I think the proposal's name needs adjusting; I think it should be "residential=gated_community" not "residential=gated" because the narrower word "gated" seems a bit too physical. - Dle0 (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)