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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 6. Mai 2022 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com
>:

> It's going off in all directions again...
>
> I asked:
> What about the idea of supporting the proposed landcover values to the
> natural key?
>
> That is: for the natural key, support the values grass and trees.
>


what would we gain? How would you suggest we tag the middle of a roundabout
with grass growing on it, no (marked) access possibility for people and
small enough that nobody would go there.

My suggestion would be
landuse=highway
landcover=grass




> This would help to map areas of trees and grass comprised within a larger
> landuse e.g. military, residential, industrial.
> It would avoid the practice of mapping natural=wood or natural=grassland
> for those areas.
>
>

maybe, IMHO who adds natural=grassland to some square meters of grass in a
residential area may not be accessible for rational arguments ;-)



> It accepts the current practice that the natural key describes land forms
> as well as land cover and features growing on the land such as a single
> tree or a line of trees.
>


natural=tree, natural=cave_entrance, natural=peak, natural=volcano,
wetland, cliff, beach, bay, ridge, glacier, cape, saddle, ... these are all
somehow similar types of features, naturally occuring features, not
comparable to the "outliers" like "sand", "mud", "ground"

by the way, there are also a few outliers in "place" which IMHO would have
better been fit into "natural", namely "island", "islet", "archipelago"

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220506/33433957/attachment-0001.htm>