On 08/06/18 23:51, Leo Gaspard wrote:
On 06/08/2018 02:37 PM, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote:
* for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees
* for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees
The problem here is that I have use the tag landuse=forest to mark areas that
are used to produce lumber that is used to make hoses etc.
As such it is not always covered with trees ..as they have been harvested. New
trees will be planted and appear over time for the cycle to repeat.
But these areas that I have tagged landuse=forest would be incorrect to have
the tag landcover=trees all the time.
Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=forest imply
landcover=trees instead? It seems like a sensible default (similar to
how access=yes is the default for access to generic highways such as
highway=unclassified). Any exceptions can be explicitly mapped.
This is similar to how landuse=grass (when used to indicate an area that
is used to grow grass) would imply landcover=grass.
That's a possibility indeed, but then all tools that make use of the OSM
database must add this implication.
With ~70500 keys currently on taginfo, I don't think it's reasonable to
say all tools should support all implications, and keeping implications
to a minimum sounds like a worthy goal. Having implications for eg.
access=* makes sense, because there is no other usable logical use of them.
On the other hand, once a mass-retag would have been made that adds
landcover=trees to landuse=forest, the landuse=forest use could be
deprecated and would naturally slowly phase-out, thus simplifying the
database.
natural=wood can be phased out to landcover=trees.
But landuse=forest phased out ... where then is the landuse for the areas that
produce the lumber that goes to make houses? Furniture?
Will landuse=foretry be the new landuse=forest .. and that then be misused as
landuse=forest is?
Basically, having an open tagging scheme makes sense for quick
development or tagging new things. I'm not saying it should be removed.
But once something becomes a “recognized” use case (as “this place is
covered with trees” is, currently handled by natural=wood or
landuse=forest), I think it would make sense to at least attempt to
“normalize” them. Potentially including mass-retags to map
previously-used tags to the standardized version.
And there lies the problem. The missing understanding that landuse is to
signify the human use of that area,
not what covers the land, not what buildings are there or not there .. but the
use of it.
Thus landuse=military can be a dockyard, an area of trees and/or a group of
buildings... the use of the land is by and for the military.
Use.
Then again, I'm so new to OSM that you can consider this an outsider's
opinion who just thinks that the database is way more scattered than it
needs to be, and this makes tool development harder to make complete,
thus weakening the ecosystem when each tool supports a slightly
different set of tags.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
