Template talk:Map Features:landuse

titles (grouping) seems not working for Key:landuse#Values

@wikiteam & wikicode specialists: I noticed the titles for the separated tables (starting from this change) seems not correct displayed on top page Key:landuse
titles:

• Common Landuse Key Values - Developed land
• Common Landuse Key Values - Rural and agricultural land
• Other Landuse Key Values

First "Common Landuse Key Values - Developed land" is missing on page Key:landuse section Key:landuse#Values
By the way, once this is fixed, how could that syntax managed also for the other language pages?
--MalgiK (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed the table to include each section as a heading within the table instead. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I matched german page to this...--MalgiK (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Reservoir tagging in Map Features

Map features currently includes landuse=reservoir, with the statement:

There was considerable confusion whether landuse=reservoir is deprecated, but it turned out to be not deprecated and landuse=reservoir is used much wider than "new" way natural=water + water=reservoir. It may be a good idea to tag the actual water body with natural=water + water=reservoir in addition or instead of landuse=reservoir. See also the approved water details proposal and pointers to discussion on talk page.

As a place for "curated" tagging information, this isn't an appropriate text description for map features. Map features is supposed to take the posture of "this is how to tag X" and exposing competing tagging schemes does not belong here.

Please note, as of 12 Dec, the following graphs, showing:

1. ongoing decline of landuse=reservoir to 380K usages and falling
2. rapid growth of water=reservoir to 330K usage and rising

In addition, the description of landuse=reservoir conflicts with the stated description of landuse=* "the purpose for which an area of land is being used"

Given the clear trend in preference for water=reservoir, the existence of an approved proposal for that tag, and the description problems noted above, I recommend that landuse=reservoir be removed from Map Features. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that landuse=reservoir is still used more widely Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

That's only true if you include nodes. Considering only rendering features, water=reservoir is ahead here. I guess we need to keep deprecated tags in Map Features until they're fully replaced, I just think this whole business of "considerable confusion...but it turned out to be not deprecated" just muddies the water (haha) and that we can do better with the description so that it's actually a useful recommendation to mappers. I will put out a note to the tagging list to see how the community feels about this. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The description could be improved. An issue is that the usage of landuse=reservoir only started decreasing in mid-2019 when the maintainers of the iD editor decided to set this tag as deprecated and recommend to "upgrade" it to water=reservoir + natural=water whenever users edited a landuse=reservoir feature. Until then usage was still increasing - note that the vote to approve natural=water + water=* happened way back in 2011, yet water=reservoir did not clearly start replacing the original tag until 2019. --Jeisenbe (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've done a bit of analysis (Overpass choked so I had to do this in stages and add it up), and as of today 48,689 usages (nearly all of them) of landuse=reservoir on nodes were from the 2009 GNIS import in the USA. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove landuse=flowerbed

The tag landuse=flowerbed was recently added to this list, but it is not widely used or supported and was not approved. There are comments on the talk page of the tag that the key landuse=* is not appropriate for such features. So I am going to remove it from Map Features for now. However, please discuss this on a wider form like the Tagging mailing list or use the Proposal process to get it approved if you think it is a good tag. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

With over 10 000 uses it seems to be starting to be a de facto tag. From what I remember it was also added to JOSM presets. I would list it, somewhere as de facto tag. Maybe add also to Counterintuitive key names Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see that it is now supported by iD as well, and there doesn't seem to be another tag for flowerbeds, so perhaps this is the best option. Added back. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

landuse=flowerbed is perfectly intuitive. Land used for a flowerbed. Just because most uses of landuse are larger features, does not make it counterintuitive. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually a "landuse" feature is an area which includes a number of smaller things: a landuse=residential includes residences, such as houses, caravans, or apartment buildings, and their gardens, lawns, parking areas, garages and so on. A landuse=retail includes many shop and retail services such as amenity=restaurant. Now we do have landuse=grass which is just a lawn, or an area of grass, so landuse=flowerbed is like that one, but there have always been complaints about this: we coud have used leisure=flowerbed (like leisure=garden) or man_made=flowerbed or amenity=flowerbed instead, and this would have been a little more sensible compared to most other features in the key. But I'm not terrible bothered by this, and if mappers are using this tag, we should document it. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"land use" term is typically used for large scale features - for example "retail land use", not "parking space land use". But I was not bothered by this to the point of making an alternative proposal Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Developed land ? Really ?

Hi there.

Developed land ? Really ? The Earth is not Minecraft. Developed in witch pont of view ? Is it developed to put a parking on a wet land and remove all wild life in a flash on a place that took thousands and thousands years to evolve. Would it be preferable to use a artificialized land or urbanized land FrViPofm (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)