[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 09:10:39 UTC 2018
On 08/06/18 19:05, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest,
> but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on
> the map.
natural=wood works... and is 'free' of the land use requirement.
The word 'natural' has been taken to mean anything in OSM .. sigh.
So natural=wood is much bette thatn landuse=forest.
Landcover is a much clear meaning and can be used for 'natural' and
'unnatural'.
So I normally combine it with anything that is tagged 'natural'.
>
> 2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com
> <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>>:
>
> 8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.giard at gmail.com
> <mailto:lionel.giard at gmail.com>:
>
> - 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"
>
>
> Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of
> landuse=forest to be a misuse.
>
>
> It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180608/2297b77f/attachment.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list