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

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 17:29:41 UTC 2018


 > But deprecating landuse=forest of redefining lanes tag is not going to
happen.

I believe you, and I think active deprecation is not advocated in this
discussion. It's about facilitating a better alternative beside
landuse=forest, for situations where te landuse is in fact niet forestry
but e.g. residential or military,

2018-06-07 18:41 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>:

> 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 down
> demolished=yes (for example on buildings), made/make multiple mechanical
> edits
> cleaning 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:
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d2223217/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list