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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Jun 11 22:49:35 UTC 2018


On 12/06/18 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 8. Jun 2018, at 17:32, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the public?
>
> there are 2 competing tags, leisure=nature_reserve and boundary protected area for this kind of object. None of them states it is named after a forest, or mainly covered by forest. Maybe this could become an additional property, e.g. for protected_area objects?

Usually the administration boundary does not define the plants stopping or starting at that same point.

So I prefer to define the plants with another relation/way rather than artificially use the administration boundary.

Thus I use landcover=trees (with natural=wood for the moment to keep rendering) for the tree areas - common around me and very extensive,
while the reserves and National Parks get different relations/ways for them.




More information about the Tagging mailing list