[Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

John Willis 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? 

Javbw


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180418/9baff968/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list