[Tagging] Overlapping naturals
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Thu Jun 4 10:04:20 UTC 2020
Jun 4, 2020, 10:59 by f at zz.de:
> Hi Mateusz,
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>> You can have forested military base with wetland (real case).
>> You can probably find military base (landuse=military) with landuse=farmland.
>> There are residential areas in forests, there are industrial zones in military bases,
>> there are railway areas in military bases.
>> etc etc
>> You will have overlapping areas or stuff like
> If you have a residential area in a forest - Is that area used for
> residential or for forestry purposes?
Depends. Usually for one, rarely for both. "is it used for forestry" is
extremely hard to survey/guess and maintain that is why I do not
bother with tagging whatever something is used for forestry.
I am even unsure what is our tag for that (landuse=forestry?)
> Isnt that a landuse=residential with landcover=forest?
Or, in more typical tagging landuse=residential and landuse=forest
on a separate areas.
> IMHO a square meter has ONE predominant usage and thats what we tag.
So you would not tag industrial sites/farmland inside military base,
even if mappable otherwise just because both are using landuse key?
> might be that there are trees in my backyard - still its a residential
In many cases this is true.
> People try to map the trees and use landuse=forest for that but
> thats simply broken.
Why it is supposed to be broken? Are you considering
overlapping landuse=industrial in landuse=military
or natural=wood overlapping natural=wetlandor historic=castle sharing some area historic=church (on still visible ruins)
or leisure=pitch inside leisure=park as "simply broken"?
> I have seen people map every single backyard with landuse=grass,
> landuse=meadow, leisure=common or leisure=park which is completely bogus.
> Its still a residential area its just grass growing there.
landuse=grass in case of one being solely grass seems potentially correct
Other cases you mention seem unlikely to be correct in any real situation
(maybe also landuse=meadow, but it is stretching meaning of "backyard").
> So i am still standing on the issue that there can only be ONE usage of
> an area.
Are you claiming that there are no cases of industrial areas within military bases?
And that there is not even one example of forest used both as military polygon
and for forestry?
And that there are no cases of pasture in area used for a forestry?
And anyway, we clearly have forested residential areas (natural=wood/landuse=forest
is for "forested area", not for some "active forestry use" anyway).
> but still landuse may not overlap landuse
> and natural not natural. Its either a residential or miliary or
> industrial or commercial or forest.
Are you claiming that industrial sites in military bases are not existing?
Or are you claiming that we are not allowed to map it and we are supposed to
switch to landcover=military or something?
And that mapping natural=wetland is not OK inside natural=wood but is OK inside
and that natural=sinkhole is not mappable as area inside natural=wood/reef/shrub area, but
is mappable there as a node and as an area outside?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging