[Tagging] geology taggin?

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Tue Nov 16 20:32:12 GMT 2010


Am 16.11.2010 13:51, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
>
>> So what is the *exact* problem with surface?
>
> it extents the usage of surface as attribute for routable entities to
> all kind of entities, therefore reducing simplicity for the data
> consumers with no benefit at all.

No, surface was meant (and is in fact used widely) to describe the 
surface material of something, being it a highway, beach or whatever. 
There is e.g. *no* problem to describe the surface of e.g. natural=beach 
with that tag.

A router wouldn't try to search for surface, but for highway or alike. 
It might want to analyze surface in addition to another tag.

I doesn't make sense to me, if people use surface as a "standalone" tag, 
because it should always be an addition to other tags. But that's not a 
problem with that tag, but how people using it in clear breach of the 
definitions.

>>> Another advantage of specialized tag "landcover" is that in contrast
>>> with surface it by itself implies area=yes.
>>
>> So what is the *exact* advantage of landcover?
>
>
> well, one you cited yourself.

Did I?

> Another one was written above: trees,
> which are not representable with surface.

I've never argued to use surface for trees, but the well established 
natural=wood / landuse=forest.

>> Sorry, this kind of vague "we might want to have xy because someone might
>> want to ..." is pretty much pointless.
>
> this is not vague at all, and people are frequently popping up with
> the landcover proposal, as there seems to be a desire for it.

Reading your new proposal page, I only see a vague definition that is in 
direct conflict with landuse and natural and therefore will confuse 
mappers how to tag things. It remains unclear under which circumstances 
someone should use landcover, landuse and/or natural.

Regards, ULFL



More information about the Tagging mailing list