[Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover

Johan Jönsson johan.j at goteborg.cc
Fri Aug 3 14:33:48 BST 2012

> On 03/08/2012 12:36, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>  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 
> >
I agree on trying to have a limited set of values for landcover ( a complete 
set) but on the same time try to avoid subkeys for the obvious differences. I 
think that replacing a value of vegetation with three values 
trees/shrubs/herbaceous would still make the numbers of values a reasonable 

Colin Smale <colin.smale at ...> writes:
> Grass is an example of a herbaceous plant, and we tag from generic 
> towards specific, so it should really be landcover=herbaceous and 
> herbaceous=grass. I would advise against using "herbs" in this context. 
> Although it may be technically not incorrect amongst biologists, in 
> common English usage it refers to plants used for flavourings etc. like 
> Thyme, Rosemary, and Oregano.  Joe Mapper is never going to forget that, 
> although Jean-Luc Cartographe might be excused for confusing grass and 
> herbs (herbe is French for grass, as well as the culinary plants)
> Colin
Thanks for the insights on the word herb.

Then it is a contest between the formal but long value: 
and the shorter value:

It is the same thing they are supposed to map, it is just a question on the 
name of the value.
It is the third value in the series trees/shrubs/?? I am looking for.

(I understand that Imagic in his previous post thought it to be a hierarchy, 
this shows a weakness in the proposed values, would the value grass be 
understood as fields of plants, even if there are more of something else than 
just grass.)


More information about the Tagging mailing list