[Tagging] geology taggin?

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Sun Nov 14 19:30:33 GMT 2010

Am 14.11.2010 14:24, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
> On 13/11/2010, at 12.40, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>> How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural?
> Because you can imagine a landcover area overlapping -- or being a part
> of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include
> landcover=heath, landcover=trees, landcover=lava_field. And these may
> also include areas outside of the nature reserve and be part of an
> adjacent landuse=farmyard.

landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look 
at (and make yourself comfortable with) the existing map features before 
you discuss here.

If you would now this specific discussion a bit longer, you might have 
known that it was suggested (some time ago) to use some kind of boundary 
for a nature reserve - which would be an improvement IMHO.

> OSM tags were not delivered to us on stone tablets. They are constantly
> evolving because new and surprising uses and ways of doing things
> emerge. Yes, we can use "surface=*" for everything, roads, buildings,
> forests, lakes, banks, restaurants, and so on, and that perhaps makes
> sense if you think of the map as a photoshop document where each pixel
> only has one colour.

I can argue exactly the same way: Yes, we can use "landcover=*" for 
everything ...

> But those of us concerned future development of the
> database, wish for a more expressive and rich set of tagging options,
> enabling us to describe more complex circumstances of the world.

You may have to learn that a change isn't always an improvement ;-)

BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could 
be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural 
and/or landuse.

Regards, ULFL

More information about the Tagging mailing list