On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 07:30, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It would > indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but exactly what > is not yet known. Once more information (field survey? low level aerial > survey/photos?) is available then a more specific landcover could be > applied. > Or for an even more general "I don't know what I'm looking at"! landcover=undetermined / unknown? "That particular area is covered by trees, that area over there has buildings on it, but when I looked at this area, on this day, I couldn't work out what the landcovering was, so someone will have to check it again" Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
