[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 04:12:05 UTC 2021


So, landcover only has two values that have any meaningful amount of usage:

landcover=trees which overlaps with the overwhelmingly more popular
natural=wood and landuse=forest
landcover=grass which overlaps with the overwhelmingly more popular
landuse=grass

I personally like the idea of landcover, and I think it was a good idea
when Martin introduced it 11 years ago (well before my time on the list)
but it hasn't gone to a vote or really caught on in actual tagging.  For
example, landcover=water is certainly superior from an ontology perspective
to natural=water (which includes man-made reservoirs), but alas here we
are.

In an alternate universe where landcover was a widely accepted/used tagging
scheme, you might imagine that landcover=landscaping could be a valid
top-level tag, with a collection of landscaping=* tags to further define
the type of landscaping.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:58 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 10:06, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> What is really being asked for here is tagging to micro-map small
>> landscaping features.  Perhaps there is an opportunity here to create a new
>> top-level key for this purpose.
>>
>> I would call this key "landscaping" and it would take the form
>> landscaping=type_of_landscaping.
>>
>
> I like it.
>
> At what point, though, does landscaping= become landcover=?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210203/a6a99363/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list