I was wondering which tag to used to map vegetation decoration (trees whith flower and bushes around it) put by town that can’t be crossed by public (there’s fence all around it). It’s an area, not a single point.
I don’t find park to be the good one so I don’t know what to use exactly.
In the title you say it’s along the border of a road. In which case add a line with the tag natural=tree_row. If the bushes mean it’s effectively a hedge with trees in it, then natural=tree_row + barrier=hedge.
But then from the body of the post it seems to be an area with trees and bushes in it. If so, add an area with the tag natural=wood. Add a fence around it, if there is a fence around it.
Unless somebody knows better (and somebody usually does) those are probably the closest you’ll get to what you’ve described.
Thanks for your answer. Yes sorry about that, I’m not a native english speaker and I didn’t know how to clearly explain my issue.
It’s to resolve this note : https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1381984#map=19/50.35527/3.52178&layers=N
There’s an area with flower, small trees and bushes along the road with a small fence around it preventing people from stepping into it. It’s maintained by the town.
Natural wood fells strange to me too but I’ll go with your answer.
that can’t be crossed by public (there’s fence all around it)
If the public can’t cross it, they can’t get into it. Which means it can’t be a leisure amenity even if it looks like one. Unless the town is selling tickets for you to look at the trees from the other side of the road.
I think the problem here is that ornamental gardens don’t have to be places that the public can enter for them to be a valid public amenity, so leisure has unwanted connotations. The public authority is not going to landscape things that neither the public nor its employees benefit from.
I was also using Park for similar areas, because there doesn’t seem to be anything else suitable. It was suggested that I use landuse=village_green instead, which is apparently being used for such spaces, despite the tag being non-descriptive.
This subject is discussed here (see para Tagging Controversy), and photos on the Discussion tab:
Ok, I admit that may have not been the best way to proceed. I only noticed the relatively recent changes to that wiki page because of your link, and decided to edit (as this alternative usage is in clear contradiction to the original, clear definition of the tag, imo) without really stopping to think about the impact on the ongoing discussion.
Sometimes there isn’t a correct tag yet. The OSM tagging model doesn’t cover all objects you can find in the real world. This seems to be such a gap in our tagging system, i.e. something for which there is no really suitable tag yet.
However, you can use any tag you like in OSM, so you get to invent a new tag if none of the established ones works for you. I’d certainly be interested in having good tagging for these features – perhaps even with a distinction between the various kinds of decorative greenery.
I think perhaps I will use garden:type=public instead, although like Park that suggests an area which people might intentionally visit as a destination.
Here is the type of area which needs a new tag. It’s the centre of a UK roundabout (traffic circle). Legally it is part of the highway, with in theory public access, and maintained by the local authority. Sometimes it might be planted with flower beds (often sponsored by a local business). If it’s plain grass it is easy to map, but here we have a few trees – but hardly enough to be called a wood, and if they grow much larger they are likely to be thinned out or cut back to maintain traffic visibility.
There are similar green areas alongside roads, along the centre of dual-carriageways, triangular areas inside road junctions, etc., in very many places.