[Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Sep 22 08:16:51 UTC 2018
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>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list