[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations

Andy Townsend ajt1047 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 18:58:52 UTC 2021


On 09/02/2021 18:32, David Marchal via Tagging wrote:
> Besides, landuse and natural tags are essentially understood by 
> mappers and renderers as related to features that should never overlap.

I don't think that that is generally true - see earlier comments on this 
list about whether any spot on the globe should have only one landuse, 
previous discussions about landuse vs landcover, etc.

It is true that some people (including some frequent posters here) think 
that, but it's also true that there are significant areas of (say) 
landuse=residential with other land uses within (see for e.g. 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/13q1 ).  Similarly, most renderers that I'm 
aware of will happily draw those other landuses on top of the larger 
landuse areas "underneath" (like the allotments at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25172591 in that example).

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, but I don't think that 
"landuse and natural tags are essentially understood by mappers and 
renderers as related to features that should never overlap".  I suspect 
that many mappers are happy just to add the features that they know 
exist, and tend to let their editor pick tags and values for them.

Best Regards,

Andy




More information about the Tagging mailing list