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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant
> > criterion for decisions in the standard style if to render a
> > certain tag.  Tags have been added to rendering with less than a
> > hundred uses and tags have been rejected with more than 100k uses i
> > think.
>
> Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to
> consider supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and
> landcover=grass?
>
> > Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a
> > typo or vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
>
> That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
> supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?

Peter, i get the distinct impression you are not actually interested in 
the answers to your questions but use them as vehicles to push your 
point of view in tagging.

If you are interested in my opinion ask open questions and show some 
appreciation and acceptance of the answers you get and don't just 
continue asking questions until you get an answer you like.

I will none the less try to answer your new question with

1) As i have already said historically absolute use numbers have not 
been a significant criterion for decisions in the standard style and 
they would not be a criterion in my decisions.  I can't speak for the 
other maintainers of course.

2) A good documentation of a tag on the wiki that accurately describes 
how the tag is acutally used is very helpful for both mappers and data 
users and as such very useful when making rendering decisions.  
Attempts at writing a tag page (or a tagging proposal) on the wiki 
specifically to get it rendered however are just annoying.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/