[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jun 6 22:41:45 UTC 2018
On 07/06/18 02:06, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 06/06/2018 16:38, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> 6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>:
>> Nothing really fits "This land is used for production of forest
>> So be tag should be invented by someone who cares about it.
> I've used https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forestry for
> that, but almost no-one uses that (literally in single figures). See
> e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370079612 and
> for an example rendering. If there's a better tagging option that
> doesn't conflict with what's in OSM already I'm happy to be enlightened.
The same people who abused landuse=forest can and probably will abuse
The problem is in part caused by the renders showing both
landuse=forest/forestry the same as natural=wood/landcover=trees.
I would place a brown axe through the tree trunks in the rendering of
landuse=forest/forestry to clearly distinguish it.
The other part of the problem is natural=wood as some object to placing
anything that is not, if their terms, 'natural' in to the key natural.
The use of the key landcover satisfies this need for some of the values
in the key natural.
The values not covered would be covered by the key 'landform'.
In 'my ideal OSM world' the key natural would be abandoned for the keys
landform and landcover.
Once those are rendered then start on forest/forestry rendering that is
different from landcover=trees.
> Best Regards,
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging