[Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 22:06:45 UTC 2019


On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:36 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Way back in the thread you wrote:
>>
>> >>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags.

That was Mateusz, not me!

In any case, if the sole determinant for whether something is a 'wood'
or a 'forest' is its land area, then the distinctive tag is redundant.
If it is an indicator of 'relative importance', then it may be
meaningful, but will likely run afoul of verifiability.

I am given to understand that in the UK, the 'hamlet', 'village',
'town', 'city' hierarchy is indeed loosely based on services: a
village has at least a church; a town has a market; a city has a
cathedral or a university. Other countries do it differently, and
you're right that at present the distinction is fairly subjective (and
amounts to tagging for the renderer: at what zoom level should a
municipality or settlement appear?) I'm OK with that because I can't
think of a better way to do it!

> My point stands.  OSM distinguishes between the sizes of localities (in order to render them
> differently at different zooms) by a means that is not an area or a dimension.  The choice of
> hamlet/village/etc. is supposedly related to population size but only loosely, especially when
> some mappers take the number and type of available services into account as well as
> (or instead of) the population.

We appear to be in 'violent agreement', then. Making the distinction
based solely on a dimension is a mistake. If it's 'relative
importance' I can live with it, but need a better guideline about how
to make the distinction. (I don't insist on a quantitative one, just a
loose definition.)



More information about the Tagging mailing list