<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Feb 5, 2021, 09:56 by f@zz.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:12:05PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>So, landcover only has two values that have any meaningful amount of usage:<br></div><div><br></div><div>landcover=trees which overlaps with the overwhelmingly more popular<br></div><div>natural=wood and landuse=forest<br></div><div>landcover=grass which overlaps with the overwhelmingly more popular<br></div><div>landuse=grass<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I see landcover as a different issue:<br></div><div><br></div><div>You have industrial areas and some of it is just grass or still wood. <br></div><div>So the whole area by its legal status is an industrial area so you <br></div><div>tag it as a landuse=industrial.<br></div></blockquote><div>It does not matter whatever something is legally classified as industrial area.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Illegally constructed factory is landuse=industrial<br></div><div><br></div><div>Not yet destroyed jungle classified for industrial development is not<br></div><div>landuse=industrial<br></div><div><br></div><div>And if something is tree covered then it is taggable as either from<br></div><div>landuse=forest / natural=wood / landcover=trees<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>landuse is more some kind of "legal" status of an area <br></div></blockquote><div>Not at all. It does not matter at all whatever something exists legally<br></div><div>or not.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If officially building exists but it does not, then mapping it as building=*<br></div><div>is a mistake.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Illegally constructed buildings are mappable.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The same for landuse.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>on the ground observation). Landcover describes its visual deviation<br></div><div>from its legal state.<br></div></blockquote><div>No. Tree-covered land is mappable as<br></div><div>landuse=forest / natural=wood / landcover=trees<br></div><div>no matter what was expected legal status.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><br></div><div>I try to see OSM as a strict hierarchy. There should be partially<br></div><div>overlapping areas. Either a parking lot belongs to a retail area or <br></div><div>it doesnt - so its either within or outside of the landuse=retail.<br></div><div>It shouldnt overlap.<br></div></blockquote><div>What about long parking area that starts in the middle of<br></div><div>residential area and continues to shop area?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Or parking partially taken by landuse=construction as<br></div><div>part landuse=retail is reconstructed?<br></div> </body>
</html>