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

Lionel Giard lionel.giard at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 08:43:31 UTC 2018


>
> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has
> 9[sic!] uses.
>
I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition not
used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules of "we
should use the accepted tags in wiki...".


But whatever, as said before, we could take a step by step approach(and
test it) :
- first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as
landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that
are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to
reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and
"landuse=forest" ;
- Then, discuss if we need to add a forestry tag and maybe make a proposal
for it. It could probably just be to create a *new *tag, and still use
"landuse=forest" when it is *unknown* (like for highway=road when we don't
know the type or usage of a road). This would have the advantage of being
backward compatible, just introducing a more precise tags for are with know
forestry use for example.

And most importantly, it would advance the discussion, as most people are
probably just looking for the first steps (having landcover=trees in an
renderer and presets, while the second part interest probably a smaller
fraction of the community (which are more into forest tagging - and i know
that some people are interested in Belgium).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180608/1621153b/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list