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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 08:46:59 UTC 2018


2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:

>
> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)
>


can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking.



> * where the name of the forest has to be placed when one uses a
> multi-polygon to exclude ponds from the tree covered areas.
>


names always have to apply to the area or position where they apply to in
the real world ;-)
Whether to include or exclude areas from the named area depends on your
interpretation of the world, there is no standard answer to this, you have
to judge the actual situation. Generally I believe it would be safer to add
names to "name objects" like place if there is no other well defined area
like nature_reserve. Otherwise you will get into trouble when micromapping
(e.g. splitting a forest would mean creating 2 forests).

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/87679548/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list