W dniu 03.08.2015 11:59, Tom Pfeifer napisał(a):
christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote on 2015-08-03 09:20:
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover)
from the cultural landscape (landuse).
But the proposal never got the support it needed to get established.
17000 x landcover in the database, by 748 different users, of which
9300 are trees, is definitely support. Probably the key should be
refined and
documented more precisely.
That's exactly why I think we should at least make specific proposition
page for trees (9 299 uses), so it can evolve and be more precise. The
same for the grass (4 053). These are not big numbers comparing to other
landuse/natural tags of course, but it's clear they are established in
terms of usage and still significant numbers (especially considering the
fact they are only mentioned in one place on the Wiki).
I wonder what the landcover=garden (1 389) could really mean and what
other tagging could be used instead, but even trees+grass alone are
perfect good reason to use this namespace. Important effect of this will
be better quality of currently used tags, because now forest/wood are
tainted by too much of blind guessing - we don't even know to what
extent! Natural=wood tag is probably hit harder by this, because it's
commonly used in two different meanings and it lost a lot of its
credibility, but natural=forest is also affected.
There are however some unresolved questions how many users really use
trees tag now (it was the discussion on default map style):
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128897237
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-08-03 10:00:
it is an orthogonal tagging scheme to map physical landcover as
opposed to landuse
and abstract geographic entities like natural ...
Which makes a lot of sense. I often have cases that a commercial or
residential
plot of land (which boundaries are now mappable from open land registry
data)
which is covered in parts by certain vegetation or surface (which is
visible in
aerial photography).
Being able to combine these different sources will bring out the
strengths of OSM.
The tag also helps to solve the issue that nature claims back land that
is not
used by humans anymore, with arbitrary vegetation, and no land_use_ tag
fits.
Big +1 for all above.
Being orthogonal here is the key for micromapping places like parks for
example.
--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
down" [A. Cohen]
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
