Talk:Tag:landuse=brownfield

Discuss Tag:landuse=brownfield

---

'brownfield' meaning

It seems to me "brownfield" is loaded with other meanings. wikipedia:Brownfield_land suggests some level of pollution from previous use.

But even this idea of being "scheduled for new development" isn't that useful, because... well scheduled when? by who? And do we really care that much? All we can see is some muddy wasteland.

Proposed features/Wasteland seems like a better idea. Then perhaps we could do landuse=wasteland, wasteland=brownfield (for those who want to indicate that it has brownfield classification, for some meaning of that word)

-- Harry Wood 17:29, 9 August 2010 (BST)

Brownfield is widely used in the UK to denote what used to be regularly called "derelict land". A site is brownfield if it has had previous (resent times) use but is currently unused. Most brownfield sites have some level of contamination, even if this is only contamination from previous building products. Many sites remain in a brownfield condition for long periods of time until a wider area is redeveloped. blackadder 18:19, 9 August 2010 (BST)

Shouldn't "scheduled" be "designated" or "available"? To me "scheduled" means that there is to be construction in the near future, which may not be the case. Evil saltine 23:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to echo what blackadder said above - "Most brownfield sites have some level of contamination, even if this is only contamination from previous building products" is a world away from wikipedia's US-centric definition that talks about "hazardous waste" in the first paragraph. Unfortunately someone has changed the meaning of the tag in OSM's wiki to match the American wikipedia definition, which does not match how it is used in OSM. SomeoneElse (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea of a brownfield is that there might be contanimation, it is not a requirement, but a possibility, sometimes also ascertained, maybe we should have a tag for known contamination? —Dieterdreist (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

hazard=contamination Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Buildings demolished?

Do we really require that there are no buildings on landuse=brownfield?

The description seems invalid to require this.

I think that brownfield can contain some buildings provided that they are old and no more used.

I would like to change the description in this way...

Chrabros (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Brownfields can definitely have buildings and structures on them. The wiki description has not said this in a long time, just wanted to make a note of it. Working on getting some examples up of different brownfield situations at the moment to hopefully clarify things.--Bgo eiu (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semantic update

I just wanted to document here that I recently changed this page a bit to clarify that brownfields don't necessarily have to be planned to be redeveloped (and really in most cases where they really are planned for development, they would become construction areas in the short term), and removed a sentence that stated that brownfields 'typically' just occur at former commercial or industrial sites. Many brownfields are in fact places where there used to be residential buildings.--Bgo eiu (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit referred to above [1] significantly altered the meaning of an established tag. Such changes shouldn't be made lightly. Was there any discussion or voting on this change before it was made? I'm not sure which is right or wrong, but previously landuse=brownfield was a direct companion to landuse=greenfield. Both were documented as being for land where development was planned but not yet started; the former for previously developed land, and the latter for previously undeveloped land. We've now lost the ability to tag previously developed land that is now planned for redevelopment. I'd prefer to see this change reverted until there has been more discussion on the best way forward. -- Rjw62 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)