[Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover

Martin Vonwald imagic.osm at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 12:36:46 BST 2012

2012/8/3 Johan Jönsson <johan.j at goteborg.cc>:
> To make my question more clear:
> IF we where to use landcover, what would then the value for grasslands and
> lawns be?
> =herbaceous
> =herbs
> =grass

I would use: landcover=grass and (if necessary) grass=herbs

In my opinion it would be easier and more robust for data consumers.
They only need to support landcover=grass and if we later on add some
refinement (like grass=herbs) consumers are still able to process this
data. If for some consumer the refinement is an improvement it can
also support grass=herbs, if not no actions are necessary.

But on the other hand those "subkeys" are harder for mappers. That's
why we will not see landcover=vegetation + vegetation=trees and
similar constructs. Such hierarchical tags have the disadvantage that
mappers often have to use more than one tag. Even for such common
objects like forests. And mappers will simply not accept that (no
matter how much templates we give them in any past, present and future
editor imo).

To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we
would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to
landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would
recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs.

(Here I want to excuse for my english. I'm really tired and today it's
even worse than usual.)

> p.s.
> Nice overview Imagic
> d.s.


More information about the Tagging mailing list