On 24/01/19 09:12, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
The main OSM map renders grass, trees as solid colours, and residential areas
too .. that is not good to me.
Another example of the landuse/landcover confusion. We could make an
argument that we need a landcover value for 'densely developed'. The
US National Land Cover Dataset has several values for 'developed
land', just as it has several values for 'forested' (based on leaf
cycle) and several for 'farmland' (pasture, cropland, orchard,
vineyard, etc.)
It's possible, though rare, to have a residential land USE with a
different land COVER - consider a small cluster of private houses on a
densely wooded parcel. I've been somewhat at a loss how to map the
combination, but it's just another example of the same problem: one is
physical and topographical, one is human and social.
Off the subject but:
The density of things (houses, people, plants) is not something OSM does well
or at all.
It would be usefull to know that a scrub area is so dense that it cannot be
walked through,
yet another scrub area is so sparse that a fire cannot propagate without wind.
Even if those can be tagged, how would they be rendered?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
