2015-03-31 0:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć <daniel@koć.pl>: > > OSM was started as a middle-scale map of a big European city, hence: > > 1. Highways were meant to be just crossing lines from GPS (=just routing > and macro-to-middle-scale rendering). >
+1, and this hasn't changed. area:highway is a completely different tag, used for polygons that are part of a street. > > 2. Churches were meant to be - well, typical churches (no need to add > strange tag "amenity=place_of_worship" for "building=church", because it's > obvious - isn't it?!). > -1, "building=church" is much newer as a tag, refering to a building and not to a religious function, and is usable only for christian religious buildings, while the amenity=place_of_worship and religion=* approach works globally. > > 3. Monuments were meant to be just monuments (no scale recognition - like > building/statue/plate - probably, no monument/memorial dilemma and surely > historical - no matter if the monument is old or new). > memorials are not "monuments", they are typically plates, signs, plaques, inscriptions. > > > But if I see a grassy area (hence "area=grass") over there or on the > aerial image, how should I know if it's: > - natural=grass? > - landuse=grass? (is it used?) > - landcover=grass? > - man_made=grass? (maybe it's made of plastic?) > I have for long been promoting a clearer approach for this kind of mess, and I agree that there would be need to implement some changes. My suggestion is to use - place for parts of settlements, e.g. a residential area with a name, an industrial area with a name - landuse for areas with the same usage - landcover for the physical landcover - natural for geographic features, landscape features, etc., typically with a name, e.g. natural=forest for a named forest (i.e. those will also overlap / be nested in many cases, and can include other features that are seen as "inside/part of" like a lake, a meadow, etc.) man_made is a different beast, typically used for technical stuff. I would never use something like "man_made=grass", even if its made of plastic. (rather surface=artificial_turf or landcover=artificial_turf) > - natural=grassland (what about landcover=grassland?) > > no, if you look above, "grassland" is a geographic feature, a landscape type, so belongs to natural, while landcover would be something like "grass", "bushes", "trees". > Now I may start to dig into wiki pages to get definitions. I'm lucky if I > speak English - many of them are not translated to my language and probably > won't be (and these which are, can be outdated). And that's just one > place... > if you speak English you could translate some pages into your language, although this is another big issue: translations tend to not follow up with amendments of the English version. > > Sorry - out of time! Too confusing, too much to check - and it was just > simple grassy area... > > yes, the world is complex, a grassy area could be a football pitch, a park, a meadow, a garden, a roof, etc., so you will have to understand and interpret and classify what you are mapping, there is no alternative. > wood vs forest is an topic on its own and how about landcover=* ? >> > > Again - I see some area populated with trees. It may be landcover or > landuse, but surely it is the area. > it will always be "landcover" AND "landuse". Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
