OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

I recently discovered the landuse=grass tag (osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Misc._urban_open_space) and I have started applying it to local areas around me, based on local knowledge.

I'm in two minds about this tag though. I think we should map these little grassy areas in these urban areas. I think anything landuse=grass means that people can walk over it, but their shoes might get a big muddy. In otherwords it's a step below highway=track. In fact most of the landuse=grass areas I've been mapping have had a highway=track way going through them. A area tagged with landuse=grass could be used for routing. It also makes the map look nicer and more accurate.

My only complaint is with the name. I don't like it. Should we tag the whole serengetti with landuse=grass? I don't like bringing in localized terms for things (eg landuse=village_green). I think tags should be understandable to what's on the ground ("Oh this bit of ground is used as a grassy area"). This makes mapping easier, since you don't have to have the Map Features page open.

Location: Shankill, Shankill-Rathmichael DED 1986, Shankill, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, County Dublin, Leinster, D18 XE76, Ireland
Email icon Bluesky Icon Facebook Icon LinkedIn Icon Mastodon Icon Telegram Icon X Icon

Discussion

Comment from Circeus on 29 November 2008 at 03:06

IMHO, the Serengeti would OBVIOUSLY be tagged with a form or another of natural= (My instinct would go for natural=prairie for wet/temperate ones and natural=savanna for drier ones, or simply natural=grassland). Most tags have significant British skews, hence why the closest values given are natural=fell/heath/scrub. landuse= is for HUMAN use of the land, hence why landuse=forest and natural=wood are quite distinct.

Comment from amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ on 1 December 2008 at 10:44

I like that idea of landuse being for humans and natural being the natural way things are. That's a nice clear separation between the two. :)

Log in to leave a comment