<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/2/21 10:19 pm, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOKQGu==EgOssVpVNgvQ2-dTmaOzxsyzBa-Me1EdPdsQgg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 10:33, Vincent van
Duijnhoven via Tagging <<a
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>We get a bit of topic but imo, a piece of land always
has a function or design ("inrichting" in Dutch). For
some, functions, there is still no proper tag like a
potential landuse=highway. That it is not known to the
mapper does not mean it has no function. I think that
landcover therefore should never be rendered on carto
but always serve as a secondary tag. It should never be
the only tag on an area because the use is not known.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are a lot of patches of trees in my part of the
world. Some large, some</div>
<div>small, some very large. They are quite clear on aerial
imagery. They are very</div>
<div>visible from nearby roads, tracks and footpaths. They
are things one can</div>
<div>use to help ascertain one's position: there should be a
large patch of</div>
<div>trees over there.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The problem is, I don't know from aerial imagery or (in
many cases)</div>
<div> from the ground whether they are growing because the
ground is too wet</div>
<div> for crops or for forestry or some other purpose.
According to you, I</div>
<div>shouldn't map these clearly visible features because I
don't know</div>
<div>what they're used for.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I find your ideas about cartography to be less than
useful.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Vincent.. OSM does not state what the oceans of the world are
used for. So these, according to you, should not be rendered? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Sorry but land cover can be seen easily, if not in imagery then
by survey. So this is easily entered into OSM, and easily
verified. <br>
</p>
<p>Land use can be far more difficult to determine, even when
surveyed at ground level.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>For OSM as the data base land cover and land use should be
included - without requiring both to be present for all areas of
the world. <br>
</p>
<p>Rendering is an issue for those using OSM data. <br>
</p>
<p>It is not for OSM to put restrictions on data entry other than
trying to keep the data in some semblance of order and restraining
vandalism. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>