On 16 November 2010 10:46, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/11/16 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: >> On 16 November 2010 10:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 2010/11/16 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: >>>> At the very least surface=* makes a lot more sense than landuse=grass >>>> etc... >>> yes, but it doesn't make more sense then landcover=grass. >>> surface=industrial doesn't make any sense either ;-) >> Why are you trying to confuse landuse with surface covering? > > > Where am I doing this?
Why would anyone have used surface=industrial? People have done landuse=grass but so far no one can give a good example to use this, even turf farms wouldn't be tagged as landuse=grass... I highly doubt anyone would have used surface=industrial, that would be landuse=industrial... > This discussion gets silly. There are no new arguments. I know that > there was the idea to use surface for landcover some time ago, but it > doesn't work in all cases and it is not in widespread usage AFAIK, so > this might be changed IMHO. Which cases doesn't it work for? surface=grass seems fine, even surface=tree is ok.... or at the very least just as good as landcover=tree.... _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
