We had this discussion endless times and I am not to take it up once again. The basic problem is that there was no structured approach in the very beginning on how to distinguish between the utilization of a certain area by humans and the physical surface/coverage of that area. The result is a mess of
and I don’t believe we wil ever get that sortet out. The last huge effort to do so
[RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2
failed just like all earlier attempts.
A possible approach may be to introduce lawn as a value for garden:style. This would allow us to distinguish a plain-grass backyard from a patch of grass at the center of a roundabout, while conveying that it isn’t quite a “proper” garden.
Regarding garden:type: While the Wiki appears to treat private and residential as interchangeable, I’ve used private only for single-family homes, and residential for the shared gardens of a condominium/apartment complex – does anyone else share this view?
Most definitely, than the access=private comes into play. The way to the building entrance needs to be tagged too as you might else run into tresspassing. Countless ways here are open gated or no gate at alll and 9 out of 10 a sign out front saying Strada Privata.
yes, exactly
so claiming any clear rules based on key= (like "no overlap of landuse= areas) is really dubious
I feel like garden:type=private is redundant with access=private. Of course the access to a private garden will be… private. So I prefer using residential with access=private. But to each their own preferences.
I did not say anything about a rule but about different understanding which is a reasonable difference.