[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 
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