[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
Marc Gemis
marc.gemis at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 09:44:38 UTC 2018
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mateusz Konieczny
<matkoniecz at tutanota.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 13. Jun 2018 10:31 by 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.
ok, thanks, pretty complex. Would be way easier with landcover = forest :-)
>
> 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).
unless landuse=forest does not overlap any other landuse in which
cases it might be a landuse (depending on who mapped it), not ?
More information about the Tagging
mailing list