[OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2009/12/1 Liz <edodd at billiau.net>
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
>> > Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is -
>> > in
>> > rural England at least ... See
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow
>>
>> meadow is a statement of what grows there
>> landuse could be grazing or recreation or hay production
>
> while this might be correct in Terms of language or not (see Mike Harris'
> post), it doesn't meet with OSM reality, where landuse and landcover are
> used sinonimously. Mapfeatures state that landuse is a physical feature
> (strange, isn't it?).

Yes, de facto OSM puts lots of "land cover" items into "landuse".
That doesn't make it right.  The "landuse" tag should be for "land
use" or "land cover", not both.

Regarding the use of "leisure=park" to represent the ability to travel
over an area, does that mean we have to cut out the areas of a park
which physically can't be traveled over (a building, a pond, a marsh
area)?  Or should the presence of one of these (or other non-routable)
features at the same layer override the routability (or change it, as
I guess technically you could swim/wade across the pond :)?  I took
leisure=park to be a "use" designation.  I see from the wiki it's
technically a description of land cover, though, in which case I'm
wrong to include a building within a park as part of the
"leisure=park".

I never took anything other than highway (positive) and barrier
(negative) to be definitive statements regarding routing.  But maybe
that could work.