On 07/10/2010, at 19.29, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I like it. Presumably it's to be precise - you draw only the area
that's covered by said landcover, as opposed to landuse which can
include small amounts of others within its boundaries. The following
landuse values should then be landcover:
*bas
2010/10/8 André Riedel :
> I like the values from last email discussion:don't
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038774.html
some are fine, some are not (cave_entrance, beach, cave, coastline, basin, ...)
let's not mix functions with landcover. How could a cave be a landcov
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 1:55 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/10/8 Nathan Edgars II :
>>> still it isn't at all a forest.
>>
>> It is a forest - a clearing within a forest.
>
> There is no point in tagging it as a forest. I know that you can
> generalize it like this. It's the same point as wi
2010/10/8 Nathan Edgars II :
>> still it isn't at all a forest.
>
> It is a forest - a clearing within a forest.
There is no point in tagging it as a forest. I know that you can
generalize it like this. It's the same point as with a lake inside a
forest. Is the lake part of the forest, or not? Th
2010/10/7 Tobias Knerr :
>> I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently
>> used seems to be mainly in the context of roads.
>
> There's nothing to limit it to roads - it "describes the surface of a
> feature". For example, the natural=beach wiki page recommends it for
> bea
2010/10/7 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brad Neuhauser
> wrote:
> Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the
> standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area.
Actually forest should IMHO be used for all parts that _are_ forest. A
national f
2010/10/7 Brad Neuhauser :
> In general, I like the idea. But I don't think the agricultural tags should
> be changed from landuse--they describe how the land is used.
yes, I proposed (maybe that wasn't clear) to use landuse AND landcover
for different properties of the same object. Landuse shou
2010/10/7 Nathan Edgars II :
> I like it. Presumably it's to be precise - you draw only the area
> that's covered by said landcover, as opposed to landuse which can
> include small amounts of others within its boundaries.
+1
The following
> landuse values should then be landcover:
> *basin (pr
2010/10/7 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-)
>
> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve
> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and
> "coverage".
> Seems like there is already landcover
On 07.10.2010 23:22, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
>> of border line, but the areas where trees grow as forest. So the
>> national park should be tagged as boundary=national_park or similiar.
> It's not a national park, but a national forest.
I'
On 08.10.2010 07:17, Stephen Hope wrote:
> On 8 October 2010 03:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve
>> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and
>> "coverage".
>
>
> As long as it is made clear that not all l
On 08.10.2010 00:05, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> still it isn't at all a forest. landuse forest is a documented tag for
> forests and forests means an area with trees.
> all the other areas you will find in a national forest have well defined
> tags natural/landuse=wood,glacier,heat,meadow,shrub
On 8 October 2010 03:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve
> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and
> "coverage".
As long as it is made clear that not all landuse= tags are actually
landuse (or would we move
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A
>> landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards,
>> driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>
> That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A
> landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards,
> driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse=forest area
> isn't all trees.
>
>
still it isn't at all a
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
> I know that legally a field may belong to a national forest, but it
> shouldn't be tagged as a forest because it isn't one.
It is a part of a managed forest.
> Every topographic
> or street map I know would show a border of a national fores
On 10/07/2010 10:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A
> landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards,
That's why it is not landuse=house. A landuse=residential contains all
things that belong to a typical residential area, like b
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> > I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently
> > used seems to be mainly in the context of roads.
>
> There's nothing to limit it to roads - it "describes the surface of a
> feature". For examp
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>>
>> Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the
>> standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area.
>
> some tag it like this but this is entirel
On 07/10/2010 19:56, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Brad Neuhauser wrote:
I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently
used seems to be mainly in the context of roads.
There's nothing to limit it to roads - it "describes the surface of a
feature". For example, the natural=beach wi
Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently
> used seems to be mainly in the context of roads.
There's nothing to limit it to roads - it "describes the surface of a
feature". For example, the natural=beach wiki page recommends it for
beaches, too.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
> Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the
> standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area.
>
>
some tag it like this but this is entirely wrong.
National forest defines the ownership but has nothing to d
I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently used
seems to be mainly in the context of roads.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Could this not be collapsed into with "surface=*"? If not, what would be
> the relationship/difference between "surface" and
Could this not be collapsed into with "surface=*"? If not, what would
be the relationship/difference between "surface" and "landcover"?
On 07/10/2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-)
What is the current feeling for a n
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brad Neuhauser
> wrote:
>> In general, I like the idea. But I don't think the agricultural tags should
>> be changed from landuse--they describe how the land is used. For example,
>> forest describes what
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> In general, I like the idea. But I don't think the agricultural tags should
> be changed from landuse--they describe how the land is used. For example,
> forest describes what covers the land (trees), while orchard describes what
> those tr
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> > I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-)
> >
> > What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve
> > many issues, as of
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-)
>
> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve
> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and
> "coverage".
I like it.
I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-)
What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve
many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and
"coverage".
Seems like there is already landcover=tree in the database:
http://taginfo.opens
29 matches
Mail list logo
