[Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)

[Anthony]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> Well then "ground cover" isn't what we need.  We need "land use".
>>
>> Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis.  The fact
>> that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is
>> fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to get
>> down to the parcel level, or even more detailed.
>
>>A typical example of a land use map:
>>http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/mastermap2006www.jpg
>
>
> Well, we need both "land use" *and* "ground cover".
>
> The former telling what people use the area for, the latter telling what you
> can actually see on the ground.
>
> The former says "park", the latter says "grass, trees..." for the same area.
> "University" vs "buildings, grass, garden, trees..."
> "Residential" vs "buildings, gardens, parks, construction sites..."
> "Military" vs "buildings, woods, crop fields, heath, meadows..."
> etc

Maybe we need "ground cover".  I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we
do.  But this is a completely different problem - it's the opposite
problem of landuse=*, in fact.  Instead of using one tag for multiple
things, we're using lots of tags (amenity=*, man_made=*, natural=*,
leisure=*) for what you're arguing to be one thing (as I said, I'm not
yet convinced).