[Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover

[Johan Jönsson]

Frederik Ramm <frederik at ...> writes:
> 
> On 08/13/12 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > +1, the FAO system seems quite elaborated (might be too
> > detailed/complicated/long for OSM, not sure,
> 
> Anything used for OSM must enable someone who knows shit about biology 
> and geology to make a meaningful contribution (that does not make him 
> feel like he's completely useless because he could only fill in 2% of 
> the blanks).
> 
> ... 
> Anything that contains the word "herbaceous" is, however attractive to 
> someone working in the field, is very likely not suitable for OSM.
> 
> Of course enthusiasts can use specialist tags to record esoteric stuff, 
> but I fear that many people believe that such tags, if "adopted", would 
> automatically enter the mainstream and their filling out be requested 
> from everyone who adds data, when indeed our presets are often too 
> crowded already.
If we replace "herbaceous" with "grass" you don´t have to know much about 
biology. 
FAO's idea is also to avoid biological and geological terms.

The FAO-system relies on that a couple of different data is added, all of them 
is not needed, it could be refined later. Based on these they can categorize 
the landcover.

At the highest most unrefined level there are only 8 different types. These 
eight then have their own set of tags.

One of the eight are vegetated land (excluding farms and parks),
the first refinement is done by asking if it is: 
mainly trees (big plants to climb in), 
shrubs (smaller plants you have to hack yourself through) 
or if it is low vegetation 

The only word they have for the last is herbaceous but as previously 
discussed, we might use grass instead. I think that chosing between the three 
values 
trees/shrubs/grass 
would be manageable by every mapper. 

Then there could be other tags if someone wants to add more of the data, 
mostly things like the form of the leafs and if the trees form a full cover or 
if they are sparse.