On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
Maybe we need "ground cover". I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we do. But this is a completely different problem - it's the opposite problem of landuse=*, in fact. Instead of using one tag for multiple things, we're using lots of tags (amenity=*, man_made=*, natural=*, leisure=*) for what you're arguing to be one thing (as I said, I'm not yet convinced). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
