[Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover

[Morten Kjeldgaard]

On 16/11/2010, at 20.45, Peter Wendorff wrote:

> Am 16.11.2010 18:48, schrieb Richard Welty:
>> On 11/16/10 12:43 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>> no, that would be surface as well. I'd say the distinction is  
>>> between
>>> the surface and the coverage (which comprises the surface).
>>> surface=bush or tree would not make any sense IMHO.  
>>> surface=asphalt is
>>> fine for the surface, the landcover would be the street which is not
>>> only the surface of the street.
>> my attempt at clarification: surface is used where the mapped
>> entity is man-made (or modified, e.g. dirt roads.)
> While I understand, what you mean, there is a weakness in that logic:
> A path in the wood made by humans is man-made - so you would tag it  
> e.g. as surface=dirt; but if it's made by animals on their way to  
> the water, it's landcover=dirt?
>
> On the other hand the "Lüneburger Heide" in Germany is man-made some  
> 100 years ago by exploitation of the woods (kept as it is by  
> extensive sheep pasturing). So here it's surface?

surface is a property of something man-made, i.e. it's in the human  
geography domain. It makes perfect sense for roads and traffic  
infrastructure. As a matter of lingual preference, I also prefer  
"surface" to describe something 2-dimensional, i.e. I do not like e.g.  
surface=building. Generally, surface is the property of something else.

-- Morten