[OSM-talk] landcover=trees

Daniel Koć daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl
Sat Aug 15 13:42:59 UTC 2015

W dniu 15.08.2015 15:23, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):

> you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to
> the natural (as in nature) and managed "idea". Usually the distinction
> between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
> natural and landuse is about named entities vs. the usage by man
> attribute. A group of trees in the park is sometimes a wood but never
> a forest. Landcover has a point besides trees (think grass for
> instance)

I didn't say it was the motivation behind introducing landcover scheme. 
Wherever it came from and whatever is the difference between wood and 
the forest, it is a useful scheme in itself, as I wrote - although the 
higher level of uncertainity, the more useful it become.

It is always better to know something exactly than just have a general 
idea, BUT if you're not sure, it's better to say it clearly than pretend 
you know better. That's the recipe for a hidden disaster, like spreading 
entropy in the database and tag definitions.

"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]

More information about the talk mailing list