[Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Jun 6 04:31:37 UTC 2020

On 5/6/20 10:46 am, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Sure.  I tend to think that if something is semantically sensible and
> can be represented, it's good to tag it, and then rendering is another
> story.  I think pretty much everyone agrees that landuse=residential and
> natural=wood are both sensible to represent.  And that how they ought to
> be rendered in a general purpose landuse/landcover style is much less
> settled.

Rendering is another area.

My view: the render has to decide what is more 'important' - land cover or land use and then how to each group.

I note how the land use military is mapped - strips so the land cover under it could be seen. If all land use were map similarity then that could work.

Alternatively land cover could be represented as a symbol like tree areas symbol. Loose the background colours for all land covers and use symbols.
Land uses would then be solid covers. Does not work for wwater so I think this would lead to more problems.

I think I prefer the land use mapped as less 'important' - thus land cover gets solid colours...

Whatever the renders decide we should map what is there, residential with or without trees, grass, flowers, scrub, whatever.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200606/6e5cd91d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list