<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>May 6, 2022, 12:24 by pelderson@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>It's going off in all directions again...<br></div><div><br></div><div>I asked: <br></div><div>What about the idea of supporting the proposed landcover values to the natural key?<br></div><div><br></div><div>That is: for the natural key, support the values grass and trees.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">deprecating landuse=grass and replacing it with natural=grass?<br></div><div dir="auto">I see no real benefit here.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The same goes to adding third confusing synonym to landuse=forest<br></div><div dir="auto">and natural=wood (to close to natural=tree)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>It just solves the issue that you can't map land cover and land use for the same feature if landuse is used for land cover. <br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">there is no such issue, you can map this with overlapping areas<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>