[Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 21 11:02:53 UTC 2019


On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 10:46, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Back to landcover=greenery.
> Is there a proposal for this?
>

> landcover=plants looks like a better tag to me.
>

Better, because not ot all plants stay green all year round.

However, it doesn't cover all common situations.  Grass and trees are
better tagged as such,
even though they're both plants.  Better tagged as such because they are
visually distinctive,
and part of the reason for mapping details like this is because those
details may aid
navigation.

I'd argue that the deprecated landcover=shrubs ought to be revived as part
of this exercise.
There are obvious visual differences between grass, bedding plants, shrubs
and trees.
Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9
Admittedly, that looks more like a hedge with area than most shrubberies,
but it's not a
match for grass, trees or scrub (it's far more kempt than scrub) and it's
not a good match
for plants.  There's no way I could map that as individual shrubs (I can't
even tell where
each one is when I'm standing next to them).  Many shrubberies have space
to walk between
the individual shrubs, but I couldn't find a picture of one of those.

Could we use landcover=plants for it?  The acid test is giving somebody
directions.  "Turn
left after you go past some plants" vs "turn left after you go past some
shrubs."  Which would
you use here?

Of course, we could have landcover=plants + plants=shrubs, but then we have
to justify
not switching to landcover=plants + plants=grass, landcover=plants +
plants=trees, etc.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190721/144bb015/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list