[Tagging] geology taggin?

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Tue Nov 16 21:56:01 GMT 2010

Am 16.11.2010 22:16, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
>> 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.
> do you see the difference between surface and landcover as described
> later in this thread?

I see the same difference between surface and landuse/natural.

>> I've never argued to use surface for trees, but the well established
>> natural=wood / landuse=forest.
> well established for what? landuse=forest is for managed forests,
> natural=wood (strange enough it is not for woodland) is for
> "unmanaged" natural forests. For all other trees there are currently
> no tags, besides mapping them one by one.

natural=tree and (repeatingly proposed in this and other MLs) natural=trees

BTW: High trees often doesn't cover land, the grass (or bushes) below 
does. How do you tag this with landcover?

>> 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.
> How can "physical landcover" be in conflict with landuse? Did you read
> the proposal?

I've written "Reading your new proposal page ...". Did you read my mail?

> Natural is IMHO an ideal example of a tag to diffuse
> clarity and create confusion, because it is a mix of all sorts of
> features.

It contains features that naturally appear. I am not confused.

>> It remains unclear under which circumstances someone
>> should use landcover, landuse and/or natural.
> I guess you didn't read the proposal.

You are guessing wrong. I just don't think it's a good idea.

Regards, ULFL

More information about the Tagging mailing list