[Tagging] geology taggin?

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 00:59:38 GMT 2010


On 16 November 2010 10:46, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/11/16 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
>> On 16 November 2010 10:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2010/11/16 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
>>>> At the very least surface=* makes a lot more sense than landuse=grass etc...
>>> yes, but it doesn't make more sense then landcover=grass.
>>> surface=industrial doesn't make any sense either ;-)
>> Why are you trying to confuse landuse with surface covering?
>
>
> Where am I doing this?

Why would anyone have used surface=industrial?

People have done landuse=grass but so far no one can give a good
example to use this, even turf farms wouldn't be tagged as
landuse=grass...

I highly doubt anyone would have used surface=industrial, that would
be landuse=industrial...

> This discussion gets silly. There are no new arguments. I know that
> there was the idea to use surface for landcover some time ago, but it
> doesn't work in all cases and it is not in widespread usage AFAIK, so
> this might be changed IMHO.

Which cases doesn't it work for? surface=grass seems fine, even
surface=tree is ok.... or at the very least just as good as
landcover=tree....



More information about the Tagging mailing list