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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 08:40:12 UTC 2018

On 08/06/18 18:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>:
>     In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry'
>     as a land use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this
>     polygon is covered with trees.'
> I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on general 
> purpose map.
> Also, anyway there is nobody interested in tagging this information, 
> time wasted on this discussion
> would allow to increase how many landuse=forestry hundredfold.
> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it 
> has 9[sic!] uses.

I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to 
landuse=forestry ... there would then be a lot more than 9.
Some 68 with recreational facilities and about 540 more with no 
facilities. More in other places. And these truly are used for 
production, not just the presence of trees.
But the present renders and mappers would not like it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180608/496be90c/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list