"Here’s an example of a square in Berlin in a residential early 20th century area:"
Is this mapped as a leisure=park in Openstreetmap? If so, then I don't see any need to also map the same area as a square. > I would still count them in, or we will end up splitting hair about how much > of a square must be paved in order to be a square. Why is this a problem? When mapping areas with some trees, a mapper must decide how much of the ground is covered by tree canopy to make it a woodland (natural=wood) instead of a grassland savana (natural=grassland) or pasture with a few trees (landuse=meadow). Mappers always have to make decisions on border cases, and usually the decision will come down to "what is most of the area covered with?" -- Joseph Eisenberg On 3/24/20, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 23. Mar 2020, at 15:07, Joseph Eisenberg >> In Indonesia an "alun-alun" is never small, they are always rather >> large to very large open areas. > > > so these are likely not the only kind of squares in Indonesia (if you decide > they are squares at all, or some of them), there will probably also be > smaller ones. > > >> >> Many are grassy fields with a few trees, planted north and south of an >> old palace, or as a parade ground for the military back in the >> colonial era, and these are mostly tagged as leisure=park, because >> they are grass and trees now. These are mainly for recreation and for >> looking nice. >> >> Some are now playing fields, like soccer pitches + volleyball / >> basketball courts >> >> A few are still police/military parade grounds (not many), grass or >> grass/dirt. >> >> But some have pavement (often pavers, sometimes bricks, concrete, >> asphalt, stone etc) and are used for temporary markets, rallies, >> public events, etc. - these seem similar to a European square. > > > seems so by this description, although festival grounds would typically not > fall in the square definition IMHO. > > I’m unsure about military parade grounds, but would tend to include them > (thinking of central open areas used for mustering and surrounded by > barracks) > > >> >> Should I map all of these as "place=square" since "square" => >> "alun-alun", even though many of these alun-alun could be a >> leisure=park, leisure=garden, leisure=pitch instead? > > > You should get rid of the either or idea, they can be both (or squares can > contain areas which are gardens, parks, maybe pitches. Actually I would > exclude dedicated sports grounds generally but there could be exceptions. > > >> >> "You would usually need to see the context in order to understand >> whether these are just parks or parks on squares." >> >> So what about the context will tell me whether or not it is a >> place=square? > > > their position in the road network and the surrounding areas (is it inside a > built up area?) > > >> It can't be out in the countryside, can it? > > > within a village or maybe even hamlet yes, in the open countryside usually > no. > > >> Or a parade >> ground in a military base? > > > maybe > > >> A grass lawn in the middle of an apartment >> complex? > > > no > > >> A patio in a park? > > > I don’t understand this meaning of patio, can you post an example? A patio > to me means an open space inside a block of buildings or within a building > (inner courtyard) > > >> >> I think there should be a practical, physical definition of what is a >> place=square. If it doesn't have to be hardscaped (whether paved or >> just packed soil), should it at least lack tall vegetation which >> blocks views and movement? > > > It could have tall vegetation as a means of structuring it, or to separate > it from surrounding streets, but this would usually be partial and allow > passing. > > >> >> Perhaps a flat area with mostly short grass can still be a square, but >> certainly not if it is mostly covered by trees, shrubs and flower >> beds. > > > Here’s an example of a square in Berlin in a residential early 20th century > area: > > > http://www.stern-berlin.com/assets/content/images/stadtquartiere/stadterneuerung/SG-Kollwitzplatz-Luftbild.jpg > > https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0f/e5/cd/c8/photo1jpg.jpg > > https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kollwitzplatz_(Berlin-Prenzlauer_Berg) > > > It boasts all of the features you mention (scrubs, tall trees, etc.) > From my understanding, the square polygon would share nodes with the > surrounding buildings, while the park/garden is contained, but smaller (the > square minus the outer sidewalk minus the street minus the inner sidewalk). > > >> That's a park or garden, even if it is called "Plaza de Armas" >> or "Old Village Square". >> > > > I agree that these cases could eventually be questioned, one could argue > they have been squares before and are now parks. I would still count them > in, or we will end up splitting hair about how much of a square must be > paved in order to be a square. > > WRT pedestrian spaces, here’s the centre of Paris in a Nolliplan: > http://www.iad-bs.de/site/assets/files/1954/schwarzplan.jpg > All the areas where the streets widen significantly at junctions with other > streets are likely squares (you can’t see the smaller ones in this scale). > The surrounding buildings will often accentuate the square (raised corners, > main facade to the square etc.) > Usually there will be a relationship of streets and squares. > > Another type of squares are those in front of > significant/important/monumental buildings (e.g. churches, public buildings > like town halls, train stations, parliaments, castles, ...) > > Cheers Martin > > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging