[Tagging] geology taggin?
ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Wed Nov 17 20:11:18 GMT 2010
Am 17.11.2010 18:36, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
>> 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.
You didn't answer my question.
How do you handle "conflicting" grass and trees using landcover?
>>> 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.
They *are* grouped in a specific sense. Already. Today. It's just that
you don't like that group because it doesn't fit into your mental model
how it should be.
> 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
You simply want to change the existing logic that you don't seem to like
with a logic that you like.
I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but I simply disagree
that it is a good idea.
> 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.
It is accepting that semantically different things can reside under the
same key and that this doesn't cause any problems - except for people
like you that seem to think that a systematic approach is a value in itself.
It is also knowing that remembering six different "semantically correct
groups" each with their own key are a lot harder to remember than two
keys containing easy to remember groups of values. May look nicer if you
draw it on a piece of paper, but doesn't work well inside the human brain.
> 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.
Fine. But people wanting to change existing things should have and being
able to explain good reasons.
More information about the Tagging