[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Fri Jun 8 17:18:26 UTC 2018
8. Jun 2018 17:32 by kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>:
> So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the public? What is the best strategy for keeping these areas rendered in the short term while still describing them correctly so that future rendering improvements can exploit the mapped information?
both leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area protect_class=6 sound OK
though it is hard to say more as such entities are not existing in my region (in Poland large
part of forest are public and it is typical that they have some sort of amenities, but there
are no cases of such high concentration of amenities in a given well defined region with
a legal status).
It is hard to say whatever new tag should be created or currently used are good enough to fit.
> I ask this question about once a year - and every time, a significant fraction of respondents give me answers that amount to, "You can't have that because it doesn't fit the ontology,"
wat. It makes no sense at all, we have no tagging czar.
If something is mappable and no tag fits the answer should be "invent a new tag".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging