[Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 13:43:10 BST 2012
2012/8/15 David ``Smith'' <vidthekid at gmail.com>:
> I thought we used natural=* for this kind of thing.
"natural" is not defined in a clear way IMHO, it is a mixture of
different kind of features, but most of them could be called
"geographical features" and if this was expressed clearly it would
introduce some logics that can also help develop new tags for things
for which currently there is no tag in general use.
Please have a look at the main natural page to review the list of
IMHO all those would qualify for "geographical feature":
while these are not geographical features in this sense:
> For the different broad classes of vegetation discussed so far in this
> thread, there's natural=grass/scrub/wood. Of course there's natural=water.
> Other landcover types are uncommon in central Ohio so I'm not familiar with
> their tagging, but I thought we had natural= values for things like sand,
> bare rock, swamp, glacier, etc...
how can "sand" or bare_rock be in the same category as swamp and
glacier? The latter would be mud or ice if we were using the same kind
of categorisation IMHO.
> So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize
> or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values?
IMHO introducing a clear logic into the current "system" would make it
easier for everybody.
More information about the Tagging