[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

[Peter Elderson]

Vincent van Duijnhoven:

> I think landcover=* should not be used at all as an alternative for for
> example landuse=grass or landuse=bush|shrubs or natural tags.
>

I agree - It's an addition. If an area has no dedicated use, or it's
multipurpose, or you simply don't know, or ity's a different patch in a
larger landuse area, you use landcover to describe what's there.


I see it in this way. You have tags like natural=*, landuse=* or
> leisure=garden | park. These are used to tag the use or design (either
> an_made or natural) of certain features on a piece of earth. That is imo
> also what carto is trying to render, more the use, design or functionality
> of a certain piece of land. Every piece of earth has a certain use or
> feature be it for example landuse=residential, natural=water or
> natural=scrub. Landcover on the other hand is more a general describing how
> a piece of land is covered ( e.g. with forest (decidious/ needleleaved),
> grass(land) or urban). This should therefore not be used on carto to render
> an area. There are tags like landuse=* and natural=* for. This is a
> landcover map [1] and imo it should not be confused with what carto and
> other OSM maps like cycleOSM are displaying. imo, it is perfectly valid to
> add a landcover tag as a secondary tag to describe the COVER of a piece of
> land which can then be used to create a separate landcover map of OSM but
> that should not be on Carto.
>

I think a general purpose map will show a mix of what you see and what you
know, what it's used for and what it looks like (shape and cover), terrain
and what's on it.


> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210205/4a44d0c9/attachment.htm>