[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

Rendering landcover=trees is not the same as deprecating landuse=forest.

It just offers the option to tag tree-covered areas on a different landuse
such as industrial, military, residential or commercial.

I do expect a shift from landuse=forest to landcover=trees, as soon as it
would be rendered.

Not because of retagging of all forests, but because of tagging the smaller
treecovered patches mainly in residential areas, which are now either
mistagged as forests, orchards, parks and gardens, or are not tagged at all
because it isn't landuse as it is defined in the wiki.


2018-06-07 15:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>:

>
>
>
> 7. Jun 2018 11:53 by selfishseahorse at gmail.com:
>
> On 7 June 2018 at 10:46, Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:
>
> There are tons of established tags in OSM where the key makes no sense
> at all. Don't get me started on 'waterway' for example. But that is
> how OSM works. Get over it, accept that people have made bad choices
> of keys when choosing tags and concentrate on encouraging and helping
> people to choose suitable keys when newly creating tags (in a
> productive way of course, not just by rejecting any idea as bad).
>
>
> And what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?
>
>
>  Cost, effort and confusion is not worth positive effects.
>
>
> Revolutions are really rarely worth costs.
>
>
> Making tagging more consistent is not one of this cases.
>
>
> Improvements are possible but not when it starts from "deprecate
> landuse=forest because it is not used to tag land use".
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180607/127e70b7/attachment.html>