Anthony wrote: > Well then "ground cover" isn't what we need. We need "land use". > > Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact > that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is > fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to get > down to the parcel level, or even more detailed.
>A typical example of a land use map: >http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/mastermap2006www.jpg Well, we need both "land use" *and* "ground cover". The former telling what people use the area for, the latter telling what you can actually see on the ground. The former says "park", the latter says "grass, trees..." for the same area. "University" vs "buildings, grass, garden, trees..." "Residential" vs "buildings, gardens, parks, construction sites..." "Military" vs "buildings, woods, crop fields, heath, meadows..." etc The big problem is that these two currently overlap within the same keys, and that mappers have different opinions on whether one tag should be used for land use or for ground cover. There has to be made a clear cut between the two types of tags. Ben _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
