Open tjur0 opened 7 months ago
To be honest, I don't really understand the function of landuse=village_green
. The idea seems to be to identify particular landuse=grass
as "special community areas". So I can't really see why you would have a border between adjacent areas of village_green
and grass
? I'm not convinced that we need a special render for landuse=village_green
, as a central green community area (the starting definition) will be fairly obvious from the location.
Given the similarity (visually and in function) between village_green
and grass
, using the same colour makes sense. You could have a thin darker green line as a boundary (as leisure=playground
), but this might encourage tagging for the renderer, and there is already discussion that landuse=village_green
is being overused.
Expected behavior
Cut out paths are visible; rending is not confusing.
Actual behavior
Currently same rendering is used for
landuse=village_green
andlanduse=grass
. This leads to confusion over where the village green starts and stops. I have seen village greens where exclusively the grass part of a village green has been mapped aslanduse=village_green
and all other parts are cut out.And having the same rending for
landuse=village_green
and grass discourages mapping the grass sperate. And is confusing as mappers think that paths have not been cut out of the grass.I would suggest changing the rending to more
leisure=park
like or remove fill rendering and only have name reneging.Screenshots with links illustrating the problem