On 14/11/2010 20:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/11/14 Craig Wallace<craig...@fastmail.fm>:
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.
I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest.
eg if I see an area of trees, I don't know whether or not it is "natural" or
"managed". Best to just have a tag that says this land is covered with
trees. Then you can add extra tags for how managed it is (if you know that),
plus tag what type of trees it is, and what it is used for etc.
So I think a tag of something like landcover=trees would be very useful.
I'm actually already doing this: landcover=tree. There is already 2545
entities of them in the db. You could still use a different surface
there by the way, so it is not superfluous.
Also landcover=scree, grass, ice, sand
are good values IMHO. Probably we should simply start using them.
I think it would make more sense to use the plural, ie landcover=trees.
As it for tagging an area covered by a number of trees, and would avoid
confusion with natural=tree, which is for tagging individual trees.
Plus you would usually say something like "this land is covered by
trees", with the plural. All of your other suggested values are
basically uncountable, so work in this way.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
