[Tagging] geology taggin?
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 17:36:51 GMT 2010
2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
> Am 16.11.2010 22:16, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>> 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.
if you cannot recognize the difference between usage and physical
cover, this discussion doesn't make any sense.
> BTW: High trees often doesn't cover land, the grass (or bushes) below does.
> How do you tag this with landcover?
let's say they don't cover the land on the surface, why surface is not
a good tag.
>> Natural is IMHO an ideal example of a tag to diffuse
>> clarity and create confusion, because it is a mix of all sorts of
> It contains features that naturally appear. I am not confused.
fine, I got this, you don't care for semantics or content of tags, of
what the do express, if they are grouped with a certain sense or not.
Of course you can make a group natural with all natural objects, but
natural is not even this. There are other natural objects that are not
in natural, natural is simply a mixed collection of geographical
features, physical objects (few) and different others. I'd like to
reduce it to geographical features (coastline, bay, beach, cliff,
....) and find a better place for stuff that doesn't fit into this
The only reason you are not confused is that you took part in the past
years of mapping in OSM and therefore you know all these values by
heart. This has nothing to do with logics or a systematic approach, it
is simply sticking to traditions and definitions in the wiki.
On one hand it is fine to let tags evolve, everybody uses those tags
he likes, etc., but after a while there should also be some
reflection. There should be the possibility to question concepts and
make changes. Otherwise it makes mapping and extension of the tagging
system simply harder for everyone.
More information about the Tagging