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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 23:03:56 UTC 2018


On 12/06/18 22:59, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand
>     you. To me, a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting
>     from 3 to maybe 20 or maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually
>     something lower than 10.
>
>
> A group is an unspecified, and possibly indeterminate, number.  You're 
> thinking of small groups. :)

"That is not a knife"

Relation: 3550886
   Tags:
     "source"="some by handtracing from LIP Imagery July 2017"
     "natural"="wood"
     "type"="multipolygon"
     "landcover"="trees"
   Bounding box: 149.4633291, -34.587523, 150.6471078, -33.5803072
   Bounding box (projected): 1.663818168767947E7, -4107967.4930973584, 
1.676995932977539E7, -3972585.7971908352
   Centre of bounding box: -34.0839151, 150.0552184

Size
North to South 111km
East to West 102 km

It is not a 'regular shape' .. so 11322 sq km is a vast over estimation 
of its area .. say 5,600 sq km is more reasonable ... 1,398,267 acres
>
>
>     Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/92d0f910/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list