On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > no:landcover=trees ? > or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees
However you want to spell it. I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from "we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here." "was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no trees in the current imagery either", still without information about whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages. I suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
