M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a): > 2010/11/16 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: >> I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how >> does using landcover make this any better? > > > I agree that in this case it is the same. For trees it is different. > surface=tree doesn't make any sense. Should we put some landcover > values in surface and some in landcover? > > We could reserve surface to roads, squares and paths.
The problem with surface is that it is currently proposed (and used) to
describe two different things:
1) A property of certain object, which can be area, way, node...
2) What is on the surface of certain _area_ of land ("landcover").
Although there is currently no big overlap between usage (1) and (2) on
areas, I think it would be better to differentiate these two use cases,
so one can easily e.g. filter out and render only landcover map.
Another advantage of specialized tag "landcover" is that in contrast
with surface it by itself implies area=yes.
Petr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
