[Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Warin]

On 22/09/18 17:39, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> 22. Sep 2018 00:38 by 61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>:
>
>     On 21/09/18 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>         I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as better
>         than other.
>
>         If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM note is
>         the best solution.
>
>
>     Best solution for what?
>
>
> For marking clearing to be mapped. Obviously, mapping it properly
>
> would be better. But fixme/notes at least in theory can be processed 
> by other mappers,
>
> in case of clearings - also by armchair mappers.
>

But then the feature is harder to find in the data base.
Note that clearings have already been marked as landuse=clearing.

>
> I have no idea why encouraging landcover=clearing would be preferable.
>

In preference to landuse=clearing.
>
>
>
>
>         6. Aug 2018 02:11 by 61sundowner at gmail.com
>         <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>:
>
>             and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use
>             of the key landuse.
>
>
>         too late for that, see landuse=forest
>
>
>     So landuse=sand
>     landuse=dirt
>     landuse=rock
>     landuse=scrub
>     landuse=valley
>     landuse=peak
>     landuse=cliff
>     landuse=tunnel
>
>     will all be fine to use?
>     I don't think so.
>
> No, because there are already tags for tagging that.
>
Despite that people are using landuse=sand, landuse=scrub... and it is 
probably because of the use of landuse=forest and landuse=grass that 
suggests this misuse.

And there are no tags for clearing.. so they use landuse=clearing.

And round the circle we go again.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180922/42a51a31/attachment.html>