On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > I don't see the key, but this looks to me like an excellent mixture of ground cover and land use. In addition to the captions, you'll notice the buildings are different colors - I am guessing the colors represent the usage.
> >> 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. Good point. Can you give us a URL of that talk page where you discussed this? I see the problem. I have no idea how to solve it within OSM... _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
