2010/11/15 Craig Wallace <craig...@fastmail.fm>: > 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.
While I agree with this, there is still the fact that 100% of all already existing 2545 landcover-tree objects in the db are tagged with tree, 0 with trees. If someone has a bot running, maybe he could change landcover=tree to landcover=trees? cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
