Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 15:20, nathan case wrote: > The two main components of the green, a wood and a grass area, are separately > mapped as such. > > Where would you add the designation tag? To the boundary or to the two main > landuse components? Or would you create a relation so that the designation > tag and name (etc.) can be shared across the separate land uses? Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element if there's a single legal "Town Green" entity, then there should be one OSM element for the Town Green with designation=town_green. (You can of course have other OSM elements for things within it, like the separate wood and grass areas.) The "Town Green" object should follow the legal boundaries of the town green. If it's all in one connected piece, then you could have a single way following the edge of the boundary sharing nodes with the edges of the wood and grass areas. (I think this is what you've done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/181597678 .) If there are multiple disconnected pieces (e.g. two patches on either side of a road) then you could use a multi-polygon relation to have a single object covering all the areas. You may also see a mapping style around where people try to avoid ways sharing nodes, by having lots of line segments without tags, and then grouping them together with multipolygons. In your example, they would have three ways -- one for the part of the outer boundary next to the wood, one for the part of the outer boundary next to the grass, and one for the wood-grass joining line -- and then three multi-polygons -- one containing the two outer boundary ways for the "Town Green" object, one containing the two ways bounding the wood for the "wood" object, and one containing the two ways bounding the grass for the "grass" object. While conceptually neat, and not incorrect, I think this over-complicates things and makes everything a pain to edit. I'd just stick with three closed ways, sharing nodes round the boundary. There's also a style in which you'd have one closed way for the wood, and one for the grass, and then have a multi-polygon containing the two closed ways. However, the fact that the two outer closed ways share common line segments, violates the requirements at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon . Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
Thanks both - as it currently stands the whole town green is outlined by "boundary=protected_area & protect_class=21 & protection_title=common" (as town_green wasn’t an option, though, I actually added protection_title2=town_green). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area The two main components of the green, a wood and a grass area, are separately mapped as such. Where would you add the designation tag? To the boundary or to the two main landuse components? Or would you create a relation so that the designation tag and name (etc.) can be shared across the separate land uses? Again, I know this is a rendering issue, but the two problems are: the name of the town green (which has been added to the boundary) now doesn't show at all on the default map and nor does the boundary of the protected area (like one might expect considering this is the approach used for, e.g., nature reserves). I think this is because protect_class=21 just doesn't get rendered. -Original Message- From: Russ Garrett Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 2:35 PM To: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) Cc: talk-gb Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the > physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal > status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such > purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add > whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the > way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground, > or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By > using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal > status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way > based on it's on-the-ground characteristics. I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged separately from the landuse. We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like town greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons Act. Maybe designation=green might be best, although it looks a little weird. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
In the past the term urban commons was widely used in the ecological literature for all sorts of (mainly) grassy spaces in towns. If one wanted a catch-all designation this might be suitable, although I think it would be perhaps better used to replace the usages of landuse=grass & leisure=common in urban situations. Jerry On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:36, Russ Garrett wrote: > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > wrote: > > What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the > > physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal > > status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such > > purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add > > whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the > > way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground, > > or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By > > using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal > > status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way > > based on it's on-the-ground characteristics. > > I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged > separately from the landuse. > > We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like > town greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons > Act. Maybe designation=green might be best, although it looks a little > weird. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common > > -- > Russ Garrett > r...@garrett.co.uk > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the > physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal > status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such > purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add > whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the > way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground, > or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By > using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal > status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way > based on it's on-the-ground characteristics. I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged separately from the landuse. We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like town greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons Act. Maybe designation=green might be best, although it looks a little weird. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 11:49, nathan case wrote: > I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a > “Town Green”. > > Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground, or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way based on it's on-the-ground characteristics. Hope that helps, Robert. > For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green – it is, legally, the same as > a village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the > enjoyment of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act > 1965). -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
> But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at > least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural > state. Indeed, that’s why this is not a traditional village green - otherwise I would have used that tag ;-). This is an area of mixed land cover (wood and open field). It is not managed (or even owned) by the local authority and is in a semi-wild state. However, what has changed is its legal status. It is now legally a town green and so the public has a right to use this land for recreational purposes without hinderance from the land owner. It seemed like this was something I should update and record in OSM. Unfortunately it's now no longer rendering. -Original Message- From: Martin Wynne Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 1:53 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens On 03/04/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote: > I ruled it out because, from the same wiki: > > "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and > "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and > natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like > boundary=national_park" > But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural state. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
On 03/04/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote: I ruled it out because, from the same wiki: "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like boundary=national_park" But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural state. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
I ruled it out because, from the same wiki: "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like boundary=national_park" Thanks. -Original Message- From: Martin Wynne Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:31 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens What is wrong with Park? From the wiki: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks are usually urban" Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
Thanks, I’d ruled out village green because of the Wiki description: “a distinctive area of grassy public land in a village centre”. This is not that. In fact using that tag in that way is listed under “incorrect use”. But maybe the legal status overrules the Wiki description! From: Colin Smale Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:03 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens Considering that it is legally and functionally the same as a Village Green, I would say use the same tag i.e. landuse=village_green. It may be *called* a town green because it belongs to a settlement that is a town (who decides that is a whole other discussion) and/or has a Town Council (which is, again, legally and functionally the same as a Parish Council with the addition of a Town Mayor). Village greens, town greens, designated commons etc all suffer from the same problem in OSM: they have a certain legal status, but both the landuse to which they are actually put, and the landcover (grass etc), vary. So actually landuse=village_green is a misclassification in the taxonomy because it is not (always or by definition) "the use to which the land is put". On 2020-04-03 12:48, nathan case wrote: Hi all, I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a “Town Green”. Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 News: https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617 For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green – it is, legally, the same as a village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the enjoyment of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 1965). But I ran into some problems mapping it. The “village green” landuse tag doesn’t seem appropriate (as it doesn’t fit the characterises described) – despite being legally the same. Park and/or recreation landuse tags don’t seem appropriate either – it isn’t either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds. Nature reserve didn’t seem appropriate as, although the land is now protected, it isn’t formally a reserve. So I’ve opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: “Community life: religious, sacred areas, associative locations, recreation”. Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) is not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I wanted to check the validity of my approach. Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything I could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on the default map? Cheers! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
What is wrong with Park? From the wiki: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks are usually urban" Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
Considering that it is legally and functionally the same as a Village Green, I would say use the same tag i.e. landuse=village_green. It may be *called* a town green because it belongs to a settlement that is a town (who decides that is a whole other discussion) and/or has a Town Council (which is, again, legally and functionally the same as a Parish Council with the addition of a Town Mayor). Village greens, town greens, designated commons etc all suffer from the same problem in OSM: they have a certain legal status, but both the landuse to which they are actually put, and the landcover (grass etc), vary. So actually landuse=village_green is a misclassification in the taxonomy because it is not (always or by definition) "the use to which the land is put". On 2020-04-03 12:48, nathan case wrote: > Hi all, > > I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a > "Town Green". > > Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 [1] > > News: > https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617 > [2] > > For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green - it is, legally, the same as > a village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the > enjoyment of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act > 1965). > > But I ran into some problems mapping it. > > The "village green" landuse tag doesn't seem appropriate (as it doesn't fit > the characterises described) - despite being legally the same. > > Park and/or recreation landuse tags don't seem appropriate either - it isn't > either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds. > > Nature reserve didn't seem appropriate as, although the land is now > protected, it isn't formally a reserve. > > So I've opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class > options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: "Community life: religious, sacred > areas, associative locations, recreation". > > Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) > is not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I > wanted to check the validity of my approach. > > Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything > I could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on > the default map? > > Cheers! > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Links: -- [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 [2] https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Town Greens
Hi all, I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a "Town Green". Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 News: https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617 For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green - it is, legally, the same as a village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the enjoyment of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 1965). But I ran into some problems mapping it. The "village green" landuse tag doesn't seem appropriate (as it doesn't fit the characterises described) - despite being legally the same. Park and/or recreation landuse tags don't seem appropriate either - it isn't either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds. Nature reserve didn't seem appropriate as, although the land is now protected, it isn't formally a reserve. So I've opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: "Community life: religious, sacred areas, associative locations, recreation". Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) is not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I wanted to check the validity of my approach. Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything I could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on the default map? Cheers! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
