When brownfield stops being a brownfield?

Help and support
1

From time to time I stumble upon area that is tagged as brownfield, but which is used as a parking (sometimes improvised, sometimes organised).
Latest example of organised one I’ve seen: Way: 1087347432 | OpenStreetMap

It is not marked with signs, but with gates present, I don’t believe it’s an improvised one. So technically land is in use, right? Should brownfield be removed there, and replaced with parking?

Does the same logic applies to to improvised parkings? For example, when area is not used and not fenced, and neighbours just start leaving cars there on daily basis.

2

for start parking is not mapped there and should be if it exists

3

But should it be mapped on top, fully replace brownfield or partially replace brownfield (leaving a bit of perimeter where leftovers from old demolition can still kinda be seen)?

4

Yes, adding an amenity=parking surface=dirt and deleting the landuse would be correct.

5

If the parking is improvised one could add informal=yes (not “official”, or has no operator according to the wiki). I am not actually sure whether landuse=brownfield and amenity=parking should be strictly mutually exclusive, one can certainly park regularly but informally on a brownfield, no?

6

I feel like parking can often be a temporary use for brownfield sites

7

I mean, it is, for sure.
But my question is if it makes land used, and thus not a brownfield (per description of brownfield)
Or am I just missing some understanding of what brownfield supposed to be, due to perhaps some cultural difference?

8

IMHO it remains a brownfield as long as it’s not an official parking.