[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
slhope at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 00:39:54 GMT 2011
On 4 January 2011 02:26, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/12/17 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
>> Yes and it would fine if we could continue in that way. Since landuses
>> shouldn't overlap
> where do you get this from? IMHO this is not defined in the wiki and
> looking at current "landuse values" like military or forest, sometimes
> they will have to overlap. To be clear: I wouldn't mind defining that
> landuses should not overlap, but IMHO this will result in changes to
> the current tagging scheme.
There's two defintions of a landuse tag. One is any tag of the form
landuse=*, the other is any tag describing what land is used for. Not
all landuse=* tags fit the second definition (most of the remainder
are landcover type tags instead), and not all of the second definition
are in the landuse=* form. If you are using the second definition,
then landuse tags should rarely overlap. But landcover and landuse
tags overlap all the time.
Then you get the ambiguous tags, which can be both. What is a forest?
A place where forestry (timber cutting, etc) happens? That's land
use. A place where there's a lot of trees? - that's landcover. If a
military area allows timber cutting inside the military zone, then
that is double land use. But if it's just a bunch of trees, then the
forest isn't a landuse tag, it's a landcover one.
An agricultural school may have fields, orchards, cattle yards & barns
etc in the school grounds. Should this landuse be a school or a farm,
or both? I'd be tempted to say just education myself, but I could see
it going both ways.
More information about the Tagging