[Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
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)
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
More information about the Tagging