Am 14.11.2010 14:24, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
On 13/11/2010, at 12.40, Ulf Lamping wrote:
How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural?
Because you can imagine a landcover area overlapping -- or being a part
of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include
landcover=heath, landcover=trees, landcover=lava_field. And these may
also include areas outside of the nature reserve and be part of an
adjacent landuse=farmyard.
landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look
at (and make yourself comfortable with) the existing map features before
you discuss here.
If you would now this specific discussion a bit longer, you might have
known that it was suggested (some time ago) to use some kind of boundary
for a nature reserve - which would be an improvement IMHO.
OSM tags were not delivered to us on stone tablets. They are constantly
evolving because new and surprising uses and ways of doing things
emerge. Yes, we can use "surface=*" for everything, roads, buildings,
forests, lakes, banks, restaurants, and so on, and that perhaps makes
sense if you think of the map as a photoshop document where each pixel
only has one colour.
I can argue exactly the same way: Yes, we can use "landcover=*" for
everything ...
But those of us concerned future development of the
database, wish for a more expressive and rich set of tagging options,
enabling us to describe more complex circumstances of the world.
You may have to learn that a change isn't always an improvement ;-)
BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could
be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural
and/or landuse.
Regards, ULFL
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
