On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 10:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Back to landcover=greenery. > Is there a proposal for this? >
> landcover=plants looks like a better tag to me. > Better, because not ot all plants stay green all year round. However, it doesn't cover all common situations. Grass and trees are better tagged as such, even though they're both plants. Better tagged as such because they are visually distinctive, and part of the reason for mapping details like this is because those details may aid navigation. I'd argue that the deprecated landcover=shrubs ought to be revived as part of this exercise. There are obvious visual differences between grass, bedding plants, shrubs and trees. Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this: https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9 Admittedly, that looks more like a hedge with area than most shrubberies, but it's not a match for grass, trees or scrub (it's far more kempt than scrub) and it's not a good match for plants. There's no way I could map that as individual shrubs (I can't even tell where each one is when I'm standing next to them). Many shrubberies have space to walk between the individual shrubs, but I couldn't find a picture of one of those. Could we use landcover=plants for it? The acid test is giving somebody directions. "Turn left after you go past some plants" vs "turn left after you go past some shrubs." Which would you use here? Of course, we could have landcover=plants + plants=shrubs, but then we have to justify not switching to landcover=plants + plants=grass, landcover=plants + plants=trees, etc. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
