Melbourne Innovation District

Hi everyone,

I’d like to re-tag or even completely get rid of the “Melbourne Innovation District” Way: ‪Melbourne Innovation District‬ (‪774716833‬) | OpenStreetMap , which is currently tagged as landuse=commercial. This Innovation District concept is in my opinion just a made up urban planning term, which has nothing to do with actual landuse. Other than that it seems rather outdated.

It covers almost all of Carlton and Parkville, and most landuses there are actually residential, and not commercial. Given its large size plus the importance of the area to Melbourne, I’d like to consult the community first. Please let me know if you got any ideas on how to re-tag this.

Instead of landuse=commercial, how about making it a Tag:place=neighbourhood - OpenStreetMap Wiki, or possibly =quarter?

I’m in favour of deleting the boundary; from what I can tell it’s an urban planning concept just a step below zoning restrictions. (

I don’t believe it meets the criteria of a neighbourhood/quarter, as it’s use is exclusively with relation to the partnership between the city of Melbourne and RMIT/UoM.


Without seeming like I have an Oceania perspective (I do not, I hail from California, USA) I do have a perspective on landuse=* and “districts, neighbo(u)hoods, suburbs…” and such. In addition to a lot of admin_level such things, which assured stayed excluded from the USA-version of these sorts of things, we excluded MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations), COGs (Community Organizing Groups, other acronymics) and other Three-Letter-Acronym designations like Specially Designated Districts (and it goes on forever). We excluded them on purpose, because they are “special-purpose-built beasts.”

It isn’t a neighborhood, it isn’t a quarter, it isn’t a “thing” OSM needs to expressly state. At least with the tags we have now, perhaps someone wants to craft a new tag or make a Proposal, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.

These are interesting, they might be noted as “things” in some gazetteer, they might even be mapped in OSM with enough consensus (more than there is now), but for the most part, they don’t seem to belong in our map (data), by fairly wide consensus. Thumbs up to the deletion, at least from this mapper.