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

osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au
Thu Jun 7 14:19:26 UTC 2018

I don’t think anyone has asked for the deprecation of landuse=forest, landuse=grass or natural=scrub or whatever.


Instead, to focus back down to the original issue, what is asked for is proper support for landcover in the default map style (in addition to whatever is already in there) equivalent to what the grandfathered existing tags have, to give people at least a real option to use semantically more appropriate tags.


The current situation forces mappers to keep using semantically incorrect tags. And even worse, these tags then directly conflict with the actual landuse tag they would want to use.


There are many places where I would have wanted to tag landuse=highway and landcover=grass (road verge, part of the official right of way, covered in grass), but if I want it to show up on the map, I’m currently forced to tag it landuse=grass.


From: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2018 23:36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Cc: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag


7. Jun 2018 11:53 by selfishseahorse at gmail.com <mailto:selfishseahorse at gmail.com> :

On 7 June 2018 at 10:46, Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de <mailto: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".

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180608/fe7de5fd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list