<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/09/18 17:39, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:LN-CzpR--3-1@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br>
22. Sep 2018 00:38 by <a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/09/18 23:16, Mateusz
Konieczny wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="thunderbird_quote" style="border-left: 1px
solid #93a3b8 ; padding-left: 10px ; margin-left: 5px">
<div>I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as
better than other.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM
note is the best solution. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Best solution for what?<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>For marking clearing to be mapped. Obviously, mapping it
properly</p>
<p>would be better. But fixme/notes at least in theory can be
processed by other mappers,</p>
<p>in case of clearings - also by armchair mappers.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
But then the feature is harder to find in the data base. <br>
Note that clearings have already been marked as landuse=clearing. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:LN-CzpR--3-1@tutanota.com">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I have no idea why encouraging landcover=clearing would be
preferable.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
In preference to landuse=clearing. <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:LN-CzpR--3-1@tutanota.com">
<p> <br>
</p>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"> <br>
<blockquote class="thunderbird_quote" style="border-left: 1px
solid #93a3b8 ; padding-left: 10px ; margin-left: 5px">
<div><br>
</div>
6. Aug 2018 02:11 by <a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>:<br>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px
solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">and
stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of
the key landuse. <br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>too late for that, see landuse=forest <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
So landuse=sand<br>
landuse=dirt<br>
landuse=rock<br>
landuse=scrub<br>
landuse=valley<br>
landuse=peak<br>
landuse=cliff<br>
landuse=tunnel<br>
<br>
will all be fine to use? <br>
I don't think so. <br>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>No, because there are already tags for tagging that.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Despite that people are using landuse=sand, landuse=scrub... and it
is probably because of the use of landuse=forest and landuse=grass
that suggests this misuse. <br>
<br>
And there are no tags for clearing.. so they use landuse=clearing. <br>
<br>
And round the circle we go again. <br>
</body>
</html>