2009/10/16 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It obviously failed at that completely. The most used tags >> (landuse=residential, industrial, farm, commercial, military, retail...) >> don't >> give any detail about ground cover. It has become so bad that I don't see a >> way to even try to fix this with the landuse tag. It has to go back to the >> drawing board without thinking about tags that are in use today. >> >> Ben > > It doesn't fail so much because most of the time, landuse values are > exclusive (residential, industrial, forest, etc).
"most of the time" is not a good enough point. > It is already enough > complicated to add polygones or multipolygones for landuse. We can see > that this is only done in countrysides or small urban areas but not in > towns/cities. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.4749&lon=13.4858&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF just because most of the areas had different focus in the past (roads), doesn't mean we won't get there... > We cannot ask people to create a second polygon which > will most of the time be a copy of the landuse : "land covered by > buildings used for residential" or "land covered by trees used for > trees farm". yes we can. And if it is a copy of landuse I wouldn't recommend to make it - obviously just in cases where it is different. > I think we should better enforce landuse to be exclusive > by removing the non-exclusive values like military. no, there isn't exclusive landuses in the way we were tagging. In which way military is different from farm, landfill, quarry, greenfield ? It is possible to have a quarry that became landfill and now is covered by forest. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
