[Tagging] landcover=trees definition

Jean-Marc Liotier jm at liotier.org
Mon Aug 10 10:29:49 UTC 2015


On 03/08/2015 09:20, christian.pietzsch at googlemail.com wrote:
> landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
> The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) 
> from the cultural landscape (landuse). But the proposal never got the 
> support it needed to get established.

A pity - I just happen to have a problem that this proposal would 
solve... Take a look at this charming corner of Normandy: 
http://binged.it/1ht3p7v

On the left, a dense urban location that is clearly landuse=residential. 
On the right, what is most definitely landuse=meadow. So what about the 
center ? We see residential buildings among a predominantly grass 
cover.  In other areas, I have seen this mapped as landuse=meadow - but 
it is wrong because it is actually used as a residential areal.

To me, it seems that mapping this area as a combination of 
landuse=residential and landcover=grass would be most fitting. I have 
thought about using the landuse=residential + natural=grass combination 
instead, but those lawns do not strike me as natural.

What do you all think ? Is this a good illustration of the need for 
landcover=* ?




More information about the Tagging mailing list