[Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
johan.j at goteborg.cc
Fri Aug 3 21:17:43 BST 2012
LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm at ...> writes:
> What about this:
> Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like
> Mappers would understandably not be willing to do it all, therefore
> any generic qualifications could be omited if the rest is unambiguous.
Sounds like a great way.
There are of course several ways to construct hierarchy,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) uses one such
approach and when they come sufficently deep they switch to a more complicated
system with tailored classifiers and attributes to go further.
Right below the hierarchical system for vegetated land, FAO begin the
classification by using the overall appearance of the vegetation to
They use something they call lifeforms where they identify "woody" plants as
distinguished from "herbacious" plants. The "woody" plants are subdivided
into "trees" and "shrubs" following the simple rule:
If higher than 5 metres then it is a tree.
They then identify if the land has a cover of trees/shrubs or if it is
herbaceous. This is supposed to be a complete set of possibilities.
-So on some level in the hierarchy we could (if we want) use theses three
values as the only ones. That is why I am thinking on what names these three
should have. For the moment the names of the three values are:
"Trees" are woody plants over 5 m
"Shrubs" are woody plants below 5 m
"Grass" are not woody plants
More information about the Tagging