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

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Thu Jun 7 16:41:26 UTC 2018


I responded to "what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?"
I see nothing wrong with using landcover=trees.
But in context of this discussion I understood "bad choices" as landuse=forest.
BTW, I am happy to fix some broken tagging - for example I am regularly hunting downdemolished=yes (for example on buildings), made/make multiple mechanical editscleaning up tags (yes, it is approved by local community and follows mechanical edit policy).

But deprecating landuse=forest of redefining lanes tag is not going to happen.
7. Jun 2018 16:11 by pelderson at gmail.com <mailto:pelderson at gmail.com>:


> 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 <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>> >:
>
>>           
>>
>>
>> 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".
>>   
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <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/20180607/00358744/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list