[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

[Warin]

On 16/2/23 14:56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Problem: there are 3+ tags for areas of mostly grass with sometimes 
> overlapping meaning, in 2 different keys (landuse=meadow, 
> natural=grassland, landuse=grass)

You have forgotten at least one - landuse=farmland, crop=grass.


However while landuse=meadow and my addition may have grass, it may not 
always have grass for instance after a harvest the grass may be gone, 
but the land use remains. So these area could have both a landuse and a 
landcover. I see nothing wrong with that as they are separate things.

A 'natural=grassland' ... has been misused .. so maybe better to use 
landcover=grass and then some subtags to specify whatever is the 
differences that people want to map. For instance the height of the 
grass .. 2 meters in some parts of the world.


>
> Solution(?): 4+ tags for areas of grass with overlapping meaning, in 3 
> different keys
>
> I don’t see how this will be an improvement.
>
> Even if you succeed in replacing over 5 million uses of landuse=grass 
> with landcover=grass there will still be areas of landuse=meadow and 
> natural=grassland which are not precisely defined, not to mention 
> other areas with grass surface such as leisure=pitch and 
> leisure=recreation_ground, landuse=village_green, landuse=greenfield, etc


landuse=meadow should delete the vegetation in the description leaving 
the use ... "Used to tag an area of land used for hay (meadow) or for 
grazing animals (pasture)." That would make it clear and possibly reduce 
its misuse. If you can only see grass then you don't know if it is a 
meadow, so don't map that .. but map the grass!


>
> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:38 PM Cartographer10 via Tagging 
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>     We have significantly updated the proposal. We have removed most
>     of the proposed values and only trees and grass are left. This to
>     reduce the scope of the proposal.
>
>     We also tried to better explain that with this proposal, we aim to
>     improve the tagging scheme in the long term. This proposal is
>     basically a building block other can build upon to improve the
>     tagging scheme (e.g
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest#Which_tag_should_be_used?).
>
>
>     I hope that this address some of the raised concerns and creates
>     more meaning for the proposal.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Vincent
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/20230216/3b5533fc/attachment-0001.htm>