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.
Thảo luận
Bình luận của Circeus vào 29 tháng 11 năm 2008 lúc 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.
Bình luận của amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️⚧️ vào 1 tháng 12 năm 2008 lúc 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. :)