The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern.
I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest. Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of the landcover key for the three main values: trees, grass and scrub. Then, bump the issues with the main renderers and editors. How to do that is not for this list, you are absolutely right about that. Only after that step, rediscuss the landuse key. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 23 jan. 2019 om 08:11 schreef Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > > > Jan 23, 2019, 1:00 AM by pelder...@gmail.com: > > > Vr gr Peter Elderson > > Landcover tag now approaches 100 000 occurrences. Still growing despite > not being rendered. I would think rendering the top three landcover values > is not out of place. The github issues are still there. Initially: > > And please use that GitHub issues for discussing this. Github issues of > (even important) projects > are not acceptable place to discuss tagging, discussing how specific > projects should render > things is utterly offtopic here. > > And I admit that continued "landcover must be rendered in this one > specific project that > I will not mention by name making my complaint not only offtopic but also > utterly useless" > mails on TAGGING mailing list make me think badly about this tagging > concept. > > Hopefully we have not reached stage that I am falling for false flag. > > After that, further steps could be discussed. Until this is done, in my > opinion every discussion about the usage of landuse tags is doomed to fail. > There simply is no way forward if there is no rendering alternative. > > Anyone may make their own rendering. And if you are stuck then you can > reach out to people > who may help. > > > If landcover=grass is rendered, a clearing in a landuse=forest could > simply be tagged as a polygon with landuse=grass, without cutting up the > forest. > > The main objection would be: existing base. But the landcover rendering > does not harm the existing base; it's fully backwards compatible. > > This two paragraphs contradict each other. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
