[Talk-GB] walls versus landuse=field
heng at cantab.net
Tue Apr 30 11:32:08 UTC 2013
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:24 +0100, Tom Chance wrote:
> On 30 April 2013 09:38, Henry Gomersall <heng at cantab.net> wrote:
> Am I the only one that has been drawing walls and not fields?
> It's nice
> to have fields as individual logical units, but they're
> defined by the
> walls, so it strikes me the wall should be the defining
> Is this a software problem in that the areas and the features
> defined independently?
> This has come up quite a few times in recent years. Some people map
> boundaries, some people map fields, and some (myself included) do
> both. It seems to be one of many occasions when personal preference
> and what you find useful governs what you map.
> The only thing I noticed about your example is the use of
> landuse=field, which seems a pretty pointless tag to me. Much better
> to be using landuse=farmland, landuse=meadow, natural=meadow, etc. to
> describe more precisely what sort of land use the field has.
Does meadow mean grazing land? Do we define high fell land as "meadow"
as well when it's used for grazing sheep?
Perhaps a landuse=grazing should be available.
More information about the Talk-GB