[OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]
moltonel 3x Combo
moltonel at gmail.com
Mon Aug 17 15:05:40 UTC 2015
On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>:
>> Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
>> would support such proposal.
> how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects?
Usually on the landuse (or leisure or natural or...) area.
> If you do the latter you will often have to make compromises, because of things
> that are part of the named forest but are different landuses, e.g. a lake,
> or buildings, campings, meadows, settlements, cemeteries etc.
That compromise is made all over OSM : we ignore the small areas
inside a landuse such as lakes, buildings, or corner shops in a
landuse=residential. Where to draw the line between too much detail
and too little is a very subjective decision.
> You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas.
When would you need that ?
> I believe it's
> impractical to have it all in one tag: forest objects, the information where
> trees grow and where the landuse is forest. Multipoligon relations also
> impose a limit then how detailed you can get without loosing editability or
> even hitting api limits.
The only detailed MP you really need is for landcover=trees, but
there's no reason to give this a name and therefore no reason to have
a single huge MP. You can split it arbitrarily to make it managable.
More information about the talk