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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 09:36:51 UTC 2018


2018-06-13 11:31 GMT+02:00 <osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au>:

> Landuse describes how the land is used.
>
>
>
> residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry,
> ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Landcover describes what's on the land.
>
>
>
> grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man
> made or managed.
>


+1, that's also what I would find intuitive.



>
>
>
>
> Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.
>



every point will have a landcover, but not every point will have landuse.
Only used land has landuse. E.g. on antarctica (or in deserts) you will not
have any use for most of the land.




> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any
> place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>


+1


Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/47843e4d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list