On 4 January 2011 02:26, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/12/17 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: > > >> Yes and it would fine if we could continue in that way. Since landuses >> shouldn't overlap > > > where do you get this from? IMHO this is not defined in the wiki and > looking at current "landuse values" like military or forest, sometimes > they will have to overlap. To be clear: I wouldn't mind defining that > landuses should not overlap, but IMHO this will result in changes to > the current tagging scheme.
There's two defintions of a landuse tag. One is any tag of the form landuse=*, the other is any tag describing what land is used for. Not all landuse=* tags fit the second definition (most of the remainder are landcover type tags instead), and not all of the second definition are in the landuse=* form. If you are using the second definition, then landuse tags should rarely overlap. But landcover and landuse tags overlap all the time. Then you get the ambiguous tags, which can be both. What is a forest? A place where forestry (timber cutting, etc) happens? That's land use. A place where there's a lot of trees? - that's landcover. If a military area allows timber cutting inside the military zone, then that is double land use. But if it's just a bunch of trees, then the forest isn't a landuse tag, it's a landcover one. An agricultural school may have fields, orchards, cattle yards & barns etc in the school grounds. Should this landuse be a school or a farm, or both? I'd be tempted to say just education myself, but I could see it going both ways. Stephen _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
