Anthony wrote: > Maybe we need "ground cover". I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we > do.
Well, all topographical maps I've seen seem to be convinced of ground cover. This is ground cover for example: http://www.ngi.be/Templates/zoom.htm?doctitle=uittreksel&image=../images/1/1/extr10_vismijn.jpg&x=452&y=452 http://www.ngi.be/Templates/zoom.htm?doctitle=uittreksel&image=../images/1/1/extr10_duinen.jpg&x=452&y=452 There are extra captions like "Camping", "Golf course", "Park" etc for some land uses. > 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). No, we're using all those tags for two things, both land use and ground cover. And often it's not clear which one. There are no rules to translate ground cover to landuse or the other way around. An area with grass can be in a residential area, in a nature reserve, in a farm, or in a military domain, or in a nature reserve which is part of a military domain. And on the other hand for example a farm could be grass, crop fields, stables, orchards, green houses... Land use doesn't tell anything about ground cover, ground cover tells nothing about land use. Sure, some ground covers wouldn't make much sense in a certain land use and vice versa, but that doesn't make that sentence less true. Hence we need both of the concepts, but certainly not in the mixed and unclear way which is currently the case in OSM and is confusing many mappers. Ben _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
