pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 12:21:18 UTC 2018
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
Presently landcover=clearing is fourth on the list of how to map, with
> discouraging words attached.
That list doesn't read that way to me. It appears to conflate two
different things: a list of increasingly-better approximations
to mapping an area with a clearing and a list of increasingly worse tag
use. Here's my first attempt at clarifying it...
1) Ignore the whole thing.
2) Map the enclosing area (e.g., a wood) and ignore any inner areas that
are not a wood.
3) Map the enclosing area (e.g., a wood) and map inner areas that are not a
Increasingly better tagging for mapping inner areas that are not like the
outer area (case 3 above):
1) Use landuse=clearing. Very strongly discouraged, although this is
tagging that has been frequently used
(quite possibly because the mapper did not know of a better way of doing
it). It doesn't render and clearing isn't
usage of land but what covers the land.
2) Use landcover=clearing. Strongly discouraged, although this is tagging
that has occasionally been used. It
doesn't render. It is a slight improvement on landuse=clearing because it
describes, in a negative way, what covers
3) Use a multipolygon relation. The outer area (e.g., a wood) takes the
outer role. The clearings are mapped as
areas with no other tagging (except notes, fixmes, etc.) and take the inner
role. This is correct way to handle clearings
and has the benefit that it renders.
Note that it is fairly simple to convert existing landuse=clearing and
landcover=clearing into multipolygon relationships
however, as always, automated edits are strongly discouraged.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging