[Tagging] Landcover... not again?....!
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat May 7 10:06:40 UTC 2022
On 6/5/22 23:26, Peter Elderson wrote:
> I'm not suggesting any deprecation. Just an idea to add a natural,
> intuïtive and easy way to tag existing land use with different land
> cover. Say, grass on a railway area. I'm running into this kind of
> issue every time I do some tagging in my neighbourhood.
>
> Without adding new keys, using elements already present. no
> deprecations or retaggings, just a refinement, and not
> requiring any intricate handling.
>
> I see even this revives several trench wars. Sorry I asked!
Unfortunately most are fixed into their trenches and won't consider change.
landuse=grass is one that is stuck firmly in a very deep hole! If that
can be moved I'd be very impressed. It is a far larger obstacle and
leads to other covers being accidentally tagged as land use, and then
repeated by that mapper. Teaching new mappers landuse=grass but not to
use it for other land covers just confuses them.
I don't see much to be gained by adding natural=trees when natural=wood
looks to be much the same thing - trees.
I don't see the landcover key being much of a problem - most of these
would be dual tagged - landcover as a sensible key the other is simply
tagging for the render.
>
> Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 6 mei 2022 om 14:16 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>:
>
>
>
>
> May 6, 2022, 12:24 by 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.
>
> deprecating landuse=grass and replacing it with natural=grass?
> I see no real benefit here.
>
> The same goes to adding third confusing synonym to landuse=forest
> and natural=wood (to close to natural=tree)
>
> It just solves the issue that you can't map land cover and
> land use for the same feature if landuse is used for land cover.
>
> there is no such issue, you can map this with overlapping areas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220507/641902d8/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list