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

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Jun 13 09:42:25 UTC 2018




13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.gemis at gmail.com <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>:


> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.




Exclude landuse=residential areas.




So my current idea is to create




(landuse=forest + natural=wood) - landuse=residential




and calculate its area.





> And again you have not answered my questions on how to map named
> forests with lakes




I have no idea how to do that, lakes are just a start. There are forests split

because leaf_type or some other property changes but entire area has name.





Real fun starts where one

has forest (or park) where parts of named area has their own names.





It is on my (long) OSM TODO list to invent useful tagging for that.


 


>  and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
> landuse




 It is certainly OK to have overlapping areas with landuse=residential (records landuse)


and landuse=forest (records landcover).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/c1aa83d7/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list