[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 11:59:07 UTC 2018
On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com
> <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>>:
> 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdreist at gmail.com
> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
> <matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>>:
> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag
> (rarely done for obvious reasons) and
> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by
> the public or privately owned?
> Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this
> the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the jurisdiction.
The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be beyond
the mappers tolerance.
The may want to map other things with that time that they see as much
more important and usefull to them.
If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it is
ultimately the State Government .
Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special event
on - like a car rally.
These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not normally
mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging