[Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/8/13 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> On 08/13/12 11:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> landuse=grass is not the same as landcover=grass, in fact, "grass"
>> isn't a landuse at all. If you tag landuse=grass you actually loose
>> the ability to tag a real landuse.
>
>
> I think the opposite is true. If people know what the landuse is then they
> will tag that; if not and there's grass on the ground then they'll fall back
> to landuse=grass. For example, if there's a military area with grass, people
> will use landuse=military and the fact that there's grass will not be
> recorded (or maybe landuse=military surface=grass?).
>
> I.e. "if you use the landuse tag to record the presence of grass then you
> lose the ability to record the presence of grass in areas subject to land
> use."


You have a strange idea about "the opposite" ;-), I'm fine with what
you wrote as well. The thing is, that landuse=grass "should" be used,
according to the wiki, for "smaller areas of mown and managed grass
for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in
the middle of a dual-carriageway. Should not be used where a more
specific tag is available."

So this isn't actually a tag for every spot where you can find grass,
but it is a tag for "auxiliary" areas dedicated to traffic.
Interpretating the definition strictly, it also appears as if we would
be missing a tag for the bigger areas ;-)
IMHO it would be less misleading to call that tag
landuse=de:Verkehrsnebenflächen (sorry, don't know a precise English
term, direct translation is s.th. like "auxiliary_traffic_area") and
specify the actual cover in a second tag (if you like).

cheers,
Martin