On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just look at the issues related to landcover for carto-css on github, > e.g. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548 > > [...] > * not enough instances > And if it gets used a lot the argument will be that there are too many instances and the map will be 'cluttered'. > * what's the difference with landuse > If there's no difference then there's no reason not to make landuse an alias for landcover. Actually, there is a difference. If grass is grown for a purpose (be it grazing or mere decoration) it's landuse. If it's there naturally and not used (by man) for any purpose (or incidental to man's purposes) then it's landcover. At least, that's how I see it. In fact, looking at the wiki, it states that landcover=grass is better than landuse=grass for things like "patches of grass between tracks in railway corridor." Makes sense to me, it's not for grazing, it's not decorative, it's there because there's no point in removing it. In cases like that, I don't see a major problem in it not being rendered. OTOH, the South American Pampas is probably best described as landcover=grass so it would be nice if it rendred. My overall conclusion is that "municipal greenery" is landuse rather than landcover because it's the way that it is because humans made decisions that it should be that way (even if it was the decision make it a protected area and leave it alone). Landuse=grass renders. Landuse=flowerbed has been used over 1,000 times but isn't documented and doesn't render, although grass and flowerbeds probably account for most "municipal greenery." -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
