Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
Assuming we keep landuse=forest for the National Forests, what would you suggest we use to tag the areas that are actually covered by trees? And how should we render these so they can be seen as different from areas without trees that happen to be part of a National Forest?
A smarter and better-developed landcover tag, as what you are talking about is land cover and what I am talking about is land use.
Oh, I don't know: dark green means landuse=forest, little-trees-icon means what is meant with a "landcover=trees" (I'm making that up, not saying use it, as consensus about landcover=* tagging seems to be emerging).
But we do try to posit better tagging so we tag what we mean to tag. And mean what we mean to by tagging it that way.
Largely, this seems like untangling what we are trying to express. By way of example, this missive seems to jump to the heart of the matter by identifying the semantic Wolfgang wishes to express as a land COVER while the syntax he is talking about (landuse=forest) is not appropriate to use when the land USE semantic is meant by it. Has landuse=forest become conflated with a desire for it to mean "covered with trees?" It appears to me it has.
SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
