[Tagging] [meta] Re: Landcover... not again?....!

[Yves]

Mateusz, my current email client seems to have trouble to identify you has an email sender, but instead use 'tagging at openstreetmap.org'.
It doesn't help to follow threads. Maybe it's my client issue or something else, nevertheless it's a good idea to sign messages, we're not in a chat (or are we?).
Yves

On 6 May 2022 20:31:18 CEST, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>May 6, 2022, 17:16 by tod at fitchfamily.org:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 6, 2022, at 2:45 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> tagging at openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>> That is wrong order, OpenStreetMap Carto should not be used as a hammer to>>  
>>> force editors to adapt tagging.
>>>
>>> For example landcover=trees tagging was soundly rejected by JOSM and iD developers
>>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548
>>> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/data/validator/ignoretags.cfg?rev=11949
>>>
>>> And also OSM Carto developers
>>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548
>>> (yes, including me)
>>>
>>> Note also that proposal was never brought to a vote by its authors
>>> since it was created in 2010, presumably because it does not have a>>  
>>> clear support.
>>>
>> A tag that has been used over 300k times despite not being approved by people on this mail list, supported as presets by the editors or the OSM Carto developers definitely has some support among the mapping community at large. Just not a handful of developers supporting the most commonly used tools of the few active individuals on this email list.
>>
>About 96k of landcover=trees was added in a single import/organized edit.
>
>And anyway, tags with the same meaning I used significantly more often
>https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest
>https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=wood
>
>>
>> For what it is worth, in my map generation I actually render landcover=* only. If the landcover tag is missing I make assumptions about the land cover based landuse and/or natural.
>>
>so you render also landuse=* and natural=*
>
>> While at odds with several members of this email list, it makes perfect sense to me to map what is seen with as few implicit assumptions about why the feature is there. I see trees, great the area is covered with trees. Are they there naturally or because of direct human intervention?
>>
>note that landuse=forest and natural=wood are de facto duplicates (some
>people make distinctions between the, but not in a consistent way)
>
>>
>>  I don’t care why. But I do want to render a map that shows there are trees there.
>>
>landuse=forest and natural=wood have this meaning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220506/da37d8c0/attachment-0001.htm>