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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 08:43:18 UTC 2018


On 13/06/18 17:23, Marc Gemis wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> won't work, see e.g.
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
>>> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>> Exclude area with landuse=residential ??
>
> but what if you want to map the presence of trees. I would do that
> with landcover=trees.

Me too...however I was responding to the request of excluding things not matching a specific requirement of lager areas of 'forests'. Whatever that means.

> But those using landuse=forest will have to overlap it on
> landuse=residential. As I see it, landuse=forest on top another
> landuse still means the "other" landuse but with some trees on it.
> landuse=forest not overlapping any other landuse means "forest", and
> e.g. a small landuse=retail overlapping on landuse=residential means
> retail (at least that is how carto-css present things now).
>
>>>>
>>>> No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>>> If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
>>> with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.
>> Proper? Who says what is proper?
> Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that
> one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different
> tags.
> Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
> for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
> residential garden.
> The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)

Yes.

One suggestion is that the present use of landcover to specify a land cover continues and that the land use of trees be yet another tag.

Another suggestion is the provision of two tags - one taking one of mapping trees the other of mapping timber production.

I prefer option 2 as then both sides have equal amounts of trouble ... :)

-------------
If 'proper' would mean that the tags were defined in such a way as to exclude another use then that would be good.
Start at one end and work towards the other? Would the start be at 'landuse' or at the values 'grass' and 'forest'? :)
Good luck ... too many people stuck with what we have now, and while that remains the mess will continue.

>



More information about the Tagging mailing list