Drop leisure=common #3619
Drop leisure=common #3619
Conversation
|
Id support this. Its miss used in America a lot to. I think people here just think it means any kind of "common" area. Like grass at a university. Plus I agree the tag isnt clear. leisure should be about the use case. Not the legal status. So I think removing rendering is a good idea. |
|
Related to #3305. |
|
Realated to #3517 I proposed color change, but dropping it at all is also good for me. Most of these areas in my neighbourhood are usually actually leisure=garden or landuse=recration_ground. |
|
Misused or not - dropping the rendering has the side-effect that it is also not rendered any more where it is applied correctly. |
|
Maybe changing the colour, like @Tomasz-W said, would be more reasonable. I could image the residential colour space. The current grass colour is indeed misleading. |
|
Perhaps it could be rendered with an outline, like
leisure=nature_reserve (though with a different color), rather than
with a solid polygon fill?
But I confess I don't understand exactly what this tag means. It
doesn't seem to have an equivalent in any of the countries where I
have lived.
…On 1/4/19, polarbearing ***@***.***> wrote:
Maybe changing the colour, like @Tomasz-W said, would be more reasonable. I
could image the residential colour space. The current grass colour is indeed
misleading.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3619 (comment)
|
|
Support dropping. In Russia mappers use this tag for everything including playgrounds, leisure spaces betwwen appartment buildings etc. |
|
sent from a phone
On 4. Jan 2019, at 14:59, jeisenbe ***@***.***> wrote:
Perhaps it could be rendered with an outline, like
leisure=nature_reserve (though with a different color), rather than
with a solid polygon fill?
I also wanted to mention nature reserve because it similarly is about a legal status and not about physical appearance:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dnature_reserve
if we drop commons for this reason, we would have to drop other tags as well
|
|
Id be for also dropping nature reserve. It has the same issues as leisure=commons and I see it miss-used about as much. boundary=protected_area is a much better tag for nature reserves. |
Could you support this by some numbers, e.g. the percentage of misuse against correct tagging? |
|
On 6. Jan 2019, at 11:28, polarbearing ***@***.***> wrote:
I see it miss-used about as much
Could you support this by some numbers, e.g. the percentage of misuse against correct tagging?
and by an explanation what you consider misuse.
|
|
Can I suggest dropping the landcover aspect of this tag, but not the naming? |
|
We would need to render an outline or an icon to show the name, if the area
fill color is removed.
Otherwise the name label appears without context.
Chris wrote:
Can I suggest dropping the landcover aspect of this tag, but not the
naming?
|
|
Okay, well that rather ruins my cunning plan. I figured it force mappers to make the necessary corrections, whilst still allowed for the correct usage to render where appropriate - at least until a new solution can be found. |
|
@kocio-pl Could you review this? |
|
I am not focused enough and this is quite general problem, sorry. |
|
I also think of this problem along with |
This PR drops rendering of leisure=common. The leisure=common tag has several problems. I therefore think we should not render it on the default style. Some of these problems are: * The tag defines a legal ownership concept, not a physical concept. According to the [wiki](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon), a common is 'land which has an owner, but over which other people have certain rights'. I think we should render the physical appearance or purpose of features rather than their legal status. * The tag is very UK centric. Commons are a UK concept that does not really translate to other countries. * The tag is heavily misused. At least in Western Europe, almost all objects tagged with leisure=common are not actually commons. The tag is often used for random pieces of public grass, such as those alongside roads. The fact that the tag renders nicely green on the map probably has something to do with this. * Other tags are available. Almost all areas that are currently tagged with leisure=common can also be tagged with other tags that are currently being rendered, such as leisure=park, landuse=grass and/or landuse=farmland.
matthijsmelissen
force-pushed
the
drop-common
branch
from
2aca909 to
0c83950
Compare
This PR drops rendering of leisure=common.
The leisure=common tag has several problems. I therefore think we should not render it on the default style.
Some of these problems are:
The tag defines a legal ownership concept, not a physical concept. According to the wiki, a common is 'land which has an owner, but over which other people have certain rights'. I think we should render the physical appearance or purpose of features rather than their legal status.
The tag is very UK centric. Commons are a UK concept that does not really translate to other countries.
The tag is heavily misused. At least in Western Europe, almost all objects tagged with leisure=common are not actually commons. The tag is often used for random pieces of public grass, such as those alongside roads. The fact that the tag renders nicely green on the map probably has something to do with this.
Other tags are available. Almost all areas that are currently tagged with leisure=common can also be tagged with other tags that are currently being rendered, such as leisure=park, landuse=grass and/or landuse=farmland.