[Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction
johnw at mac.com
Wed Apr 18 01:06:56 UTC 2018
> On Apr 12, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> So what are you going to use/propose ? landcover or man_made ?
> Curious, because I want to correct my mapping.
I Have been thinking about it a lot, and I think we need two separate tags - one for the object and one for the “surface” (landcover).
So I think there is a need for both man_made=flowerbed and landcover=flowers — maybe this is overkill, but I want to follow the theme followed by other tags.
But there is a discrepancy...
Other types of plant-based tags have the ability to map an individual item (tree, shrub), as well as a linear line (tree row, barrier=hedge), and an area (scrub, wood/forest).
Flowers are difficult because in some usages they are shrubs - like the distinct, named, cataloged, and mappable-from-imagery rose bushes in a rose garden; in other usages they are tiny plants in massive quantities that should only be mapped by area.
So, I think it would be good to use the existing natural=shrub with man_made=flowerbed when mapping large gardens of carefully managed flowers, and to have a general landcover=flowers to use for all other circumstances. but I am not sure how to use flower_bed by itself when it contains unnamable “tiny” flowers or a field of nameless, unmappable flowers, like nemophila or a named breed of a single flower (like tulips). would you combine man_made=flowerbed & landcover=flowers in such a situation? similar to a road, park, pitch, or track - we map the item *and* what it’s “surface” is separately — is such a distinction necessary here?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging