[Tagging] geology taggin?

Ulf Lamping 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.
> moon

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
>>> features.
>> 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
> logic.

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.

Regards, ULFL

More information about the Tagging mailing list