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

[Warin]

On 6/5/22 18:45, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 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.


+1

>
> So for me thats not the same -

>   And moving landcover into natural feels
> really broken.


+1

>
> For me:
>
> natural= mostly natural and non humanly influenced areas


Unfortunately in OSM the key 'natural' does not mean natural any more.

A man made 'peak' gets tagged 'natural=peak' similarly for man made 
clifts etc.


The key 'natural' should be replaced ... with landcover, landform etc.


All these land* are confusing as mappers use to landuse=grass use the 
same key for landuse=sand, landuse=gravel, landuse=scrub etc etc. While 
not common these do occur.

> landuse= actively used/cultivated by human

I think landuse=human use of the land

Possibly this could be changed to humanuse=* to remove the confusion ...

> 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.


landuse=forest does not mean all of it is covered in trees, some may 
have buildings on it for equipment storage, human rest, toilets.. it may 
have a lake ... used for fire fighting


Hindsight is a wonderful thing... pity that these ideas could not be 
sent back in time.