[Tagging] Landcover... not again?....!

[Peter Elderson]

What about the idea of just moving the proposed values into the natural key?

I currently use natural=wood where many still tag landuse=forest, mainly
because the tagged patches tend to be smaller and smaller, and within
completely different landuses (mapping in Nederland is almost by definition
micromapping of combined land uses and land covers).

natural=scrub works fine for scrub within all kinds of land uses.

natural=grassland works fine for grassy areas within different land uses.

The main objection against the proposed landcover key was that massive
retagging of the enormous installed base is not going to happen, mainly
because it accomplishes nothing, it's just a different label for the
same thing. So it would amount to data users having to support an extra tag
for the same thing.

Moving most of the proposed landcover values just solves the issue that
mappers often need a land cover tag AND a land use tag, without adding a
new key.

Peter Elderson


Op do 5 mei 2022 om 23:43 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

> I have made some updates to the page. Do not hold your breath ;-)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220506/0829b5c1/attachment.htm>