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

[Florian Lohoff]

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 09:36:19AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> 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).

I might be way off but living in Germany the distinction between
landuse=forest and natural=wood was that the former was actively used
for "wood generation" where as the latter is a mostly by human
uninfluenced natural wood.

So for me thats not the same - And moving landcover into natural feels
really broken.

For me:

natural= mostly natural and non humanly influenced areas
landuse= actively used/cultivated by human
landcover= "top soil appearance" 

Landcover kind of overlaps with the former 2 but not in all cases. Some trees
in a landuse=residential dont make it a landuse=forest.


Flo
PS: And i know about wildly confusing and broken natural/landuse values
which have come up in the past 15 years.
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                     f at zz.de
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220506/2b61741d/attachment.sig>