Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

In American English, especially in the west, the word “meadow” is used for
areas in the high mountains which grow grasses, sedges, annual wildflowers
etc in the summer months after the snow melts. They might occasionally be
used to graze cattle as rangeland, but usually are only graced by elk.

I think these would be called a “fell” in parts of Britain, but they are
somewhat similar to alpine meadows / pastures in the Swiss/Austrian alps,
where dairy cattle graze in the summer. Those really are pastures or hay
meadows, so perhaps Americans we got that usage from Swiss and Austrian
immigrants, and applied it to mountain grasslands?

I agree that alpine “meadows” should be tagged natural=grassland, but don’t
be surprised to find some mapped as “landuse=meadow” in the mountains of
California and Colorado.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:20 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/3/20 2:46 pm, brad wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/20 6:31 PM, Warin wrote:
> >> On 16/3/20 11:02 am, brad wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Perhaps we should deprecate landuse=meadow
> >>>
> >>> I think there could be a distinction between a meadow (something
> >>> that may have more 'other stuff' than grass), and grassland.
> >>
> >>
> >> What 'other stuff'?
> >>
> >>
> >> Grass covers a lot more than the domestic stuff most are thinking of.
> >> Some grasses get to over 2 metres (6 foot) tall.
> >>
> >>
> > There are a lot of native species in a mountain, or riparian meadow
> > that are not grasses.
>
>
> So .. what makes 'it' a 'meadow'? Genuine question.
>
> Not a land use?
>
> Not a land cover? Possibly low growing plants (less than 0.5 metres,
> includes grasses and similar plants)?
>
> A land form?
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Warin]

On 16/3/20 2:46 pm, brad wrote:



On 3/15/20 6:31 PM, Warin wrote:

On 16/3/20 11:02 am, brad wrote:



Perhaps we should deprecate landuse=meadow

I think there could be a distinction between a meadow (something 
that may have more 'other stuff' than grass), and grassland.



What 'other stuff'?


Grass covers a lot more than the domestic stuff most are thinking of. 
Some grasses get to over 2 metres (6 foot) tall.



There are a lot of native species in a mountain, or riparian meadow 
that are not grasses.



So .. what makes 'it' a 'meadow'? Genuine question.

Not a land use?

Not a land cover? Possibly low growing plants (less than 0.5 metres, 
includes grasses and similar plants)?


A land form?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[brad]

On 3/15/20 6:31 PM, Warin wrote:

On 16/3/20 11:02 am, brad wrote:



Perhaps we should deprecate landuse=meadow

I think there could be a distinction between a meadow (something that 
may have more 'other stuff' than grass), and grassland.



What 'other stuff'?


Grass covers a lot more than the domestic stuff most are thinking of. 
Some grasses get to over 2 metres (6 foot) tall.



There are a lot of native species in a mountain, or riparian meadow that 
are not grasses.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Warin]

On 16/3/20 11:52 am, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 00:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Grass covers a lot more than the domestic stuff most are thinking
of. Some grasses get to over 2 metres (6 foot) tall.

If you're going to include exotic grasses, some reach 25 metres tall.


:)

Only thinking of the ones I came across... they obscure walking trails 
and cairns so you must have additional info (GPS, map and compass) .. or 
get lost.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 00:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Grass covers a lot more than the domestic stuff most are thinking of. Some
> grasses get to over 2 metres (6 foot) tall.
>
If you're going to include exotic grasses, some reach 25 metres tall.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Warin]

On 16/3/20 11:02 am, brad wrote:



On 3/15/20 3:14 PM, Warin wrote:

On 16/3/20 6:01 am, brad wrote:

On 3/14/20 9:47 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,
The present description of landuse=meadow is;
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily vegetated by grass and other 
non-woody plants, mainly used for hay or grazing.
That places the land cover before the land use. The emphases should be on the 
land use, the land use should be first?
Possibly a better description:
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily used to produce hay or for grazing 
of animals. Usually vegetated by grass and other non-woody plants.



I am trying to get mappers not to use this for areas of grass land that could 
be more appropriatly tagged natural=grassland.

Thoughts?

I disagree.  Perhaps a regional definition?  I think meadow is the 
land cover, pasture is the land use

This would match my definition:
Meadow:  "a field with grass and often wild flowers in it: "
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meadow
or
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meadow
"A meadow is a field which has grass and flowers growing in it. "

Locally, (Colorado, USA), we might call a grassy area high in the 
mountains an alpine meadow, and it may not have any domesticated 
animals grazing it.



Is that not the tag natural=grassland? The tag natural=grassland is 
for a land cover of grass .. I think that is what you want.



The key' landuse' should not be used for land cover, so 
landuse=meadow should not be used for any land cover.


The presence of grass is an indication that the land use of grazing 
or cropping of hay might, just might take place.


Good point.  I overlooked the left side of that equation, landuse= 
. I still don't like landuse=meadow, but I guess this is British 
English, so I won't argue the point


landuse = pasture, or hay
and
natural = meadow (or natural=grassland)
Make more sense to me.
Note that the definitions for meadow that I quoted talk about a 
landcover, not a landuse.



And here is an excellent demonstration of the problem with the OSM 
description of landuse=meadow.



If the description contained the land use first then that would be more 
prevalent in the mind of the reader, particularly when the reader is 
after quick information.






Perhaps we should deprecate landuse=meadow

I think there could be a distinction between a meadow (something that 
may have more 'other stuff' than grass), and grassland.



What 'other stuff'?


Grass covers a lot more than the domestic stuff most are thinking of. 
Some grasses get to over 2 metres (6 foot) tall.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[brad]

On 3/15/20 3:14 PM, Warin wrote:

On 16/3/20 6:01 am, brad wrote:

On 3/14/20 9:47 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,
The present description of landuse=meadow is;
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily vegetated by grass and other 
non-woody plants, mainly used for hay or grazing.
That places the land cover before the land use. The emphases should be on the 
land use, the land use should be first?
Possibly a better description:
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily used to produce hay or for grazing 
of animals. Usually vegetated by grass and other non-woody plants.



I am trying to get mappers not to use this for areas of grass land that could 
be more appropriatly tagged natural=grassland.

Thoughts?

I disagree.  Perhaps a regional definition?  I think meadow is the 
land cover, pasture is the land use

This would match my definition:
Meadow:  "a field with grass and often wild flowers in it: "
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meadow
or
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meadow
"A meadow is a field which has grass and flowers growing in it. "

Locally, (Colorado, USA), we might call a grassy area high in the 
mountains an alpine meadow, and it may not have any domesticated 
animals grazing it.



Is that not the tag natural=grassland? The tag natural=grassland is 
for a land cover of grass .. I think that is what you want.



The key' landuse' should not be used for land cover, so landuse=meadow 
should not be used for any land cover.


The presence of grass is an indication that the land use of grazing or 
cropping of hay might, just might take place.


Good point.  I overlooked the left side of that equation, landuse= . 
I still don't like landuse=meadow, but I guess this is British English, 
so I won't argue the point


landuse = pasture, or hay
and
natural = meadow (or natural=grassland)
Make more sense to me.
Note that the definitions for meadow that I quoted talk about a 
landcover, not a landuse.   Perhaps we should deprecate landuse=meadow


I think there could be a distinction between a meadow (something that 
may have more 'other stuff' than grass), and grassland.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Warin]

On 16/3/20 6:01 am, brad wrote:

On 3/14/20 9:47 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,
The present description of landuse=meadow is;
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily vegetated by grass and other 
non-woody plants, mainly used for hay or grazing.
That places the land cover before the land use. The emphases should be on the 
land use, the land use should be first?
Possibly a better description:
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily used to produce hay or for grazing 
of animals. Usually vegetated by grass and other non-woody plants.



I am trying to get mappers not to use this for areas of grass land that could 
be more appropriatly tagged natural=grassland.

Thoughts?

I disagree.  Perhaps a regional definition?  I think meadow is the 
land cover, pasture is the land use

This would match my definition:
Meadow:  "a field with grass and often wild flowers in it: "
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meadow
or
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meadow
"A meadow is a field which has grass and flowers growing in it. "

Locally, (Colorado, USA), we might call a grassy area high in the 
mountains an alpine meadow, and it may not have any domesticated 
animals grazing it.



Is that not the tag natural=grassland? The tag natural=grassland is for 
a land cover of grass .. I think that is what you want.



The key' landuse' should not be used for land cover, so landuse=meadow 
should not be used for any land cover.


The presence of grass is an indication that the land use of grazing or 
cropping of hay might, just might take place.






On 3/14/20 11:46 PM, Warin wrote:

On 15/3/20 4:36 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:


The presence of mainly grass (or sedges, clover, other herbaceous
plants) is just as important as the presence of grazing or occasional
hay-cutting, to define a meadow or pasture.

The grass is not there once cut, the remains are stubble. Hence the word 
'usually' can be employed?
Minor point, but I think most grasses are perennial, so it's still 
there even if its cut.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[brad]

On 3/14/20 9:47 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,
The present description of landuse=meadow is;
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily vegetated by grass and other 
non-woody plants, mainly used for hay or grazing.
That places the land cover before the land use. The emphases should be on the 
land use, the land use should be first?
Possibly a better description:
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily used to produce hay or for grazing 
of animals. Usually vegetated by grass and other non-woody plants.



I am trying to get mappers not to use this for areas of grass land that could 
be more appropriatly tagged natural=grassland.

Thoughts?

I disagree.  Perhaps a regional definition?  I think meadow is the land 
cover, pasture is the land use

This would match my definition:
Meadow:  "a field with grass and often wild flowers in it: "
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meadow
or
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meadow
"A meadow is a field which has grass and flowers growing in it. "

Locally, (Colorado, USA), we might call a grassy area high in the 
mountains an alpine meadow, and it may not have any domesticated animals 
grazing it.



On 3/14/20 11:46 PM, Warin wrote:

On 15/3/20 4:36 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:


The presence of mainly grass (or sedges, clover, other herbaceous
plants) is just as important as the presence of grazing or occasional
hay-cutting, to define a meadow or pasture.

The grass is not there once cut, the remains are stubble. Hence the word 
'usually' can be employed?
Minor point, but I think most grasses are perennial, so it's still there 
even if its cut.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 12:42 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> On 3/15/2020 6:18 AM, Markus Peloso
>   wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
> >  
> > A small facility where people drop off and
> >   pick up various types of items in the sense of free
> > sharing.
> >  
> > Hi
> > After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining
> >   is the same as no vote" and the change of the Proposal
> > process
> >   page I reopen the voting, maybe someone wants to change
> > their
> >   vote or add a comment.
> >  
> > In the meantime we have got some new
> >   inputs:
> >  
> > Summary
> > - We hade discuss about give box, hiker
> >   box, public refrigerator, free pantry and food sharing
> > and how
> >   this things could be documented in OpenStreetMap.
> >   
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails
> > - New Proposed feature "food sharing" 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing 
> > - New Proposed feature "donation of goods"
> >   
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods
> > 
> > - Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new
> >   amenity=give_box tag
> >   https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA 
> >  
> >   
> > 
> 
> Thanks for your patience and perseverance, Markus!
> It's clear that give boxes will be approved as a feature. The
>   only remaining questions I see are:
> 1. What's the best tag for them? (Some people don't like
>   "give_box" -- maybe an opportunity to experiment with
>   ranked-choice voting?) 
> 
> 
> 2. What related amenities are distinct enough that they deserve
>   their own separate tags?
> 
>- Public bookcase, obviously. 
> 
>- Separating the food sharing amenities seems like a good
> idea.
>   I'd be in favor of a single tag to which refrigerated=yes could
> be
>   added to indicate a public refrigerator.
> 
>- I like the idea of a separate tag for hiker boxes, because
> (as
>   I mentioned in the public refrigerator thread) it's very common
> to
>   have them as part of another map feature like post office,
> shop,
>   hotel, or campsite, so simply being able to add hiker_box=yes
>   would be great. 
> 
>- I've never heard the term "blessing box" before but it seems
>   like they'd best be classified as either food sharing or give
> box,
>   depending on the inventory.
> 
Blessing box sounds like some something religious to me, so not a good
term for this proposal.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 3/15/2020 6:18 AM, Markus Peloso wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of
items in the sense of free sharing.

Hi

After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining is the same as no vote"
and the change of the Proposal process page I reopen the voting, maybe
someone wants to change their vote or add a comment.

In the meantime we have got some new inputs:

Summary

- We hade discuss about give box, hiker box, public refrigerator, free
pantry and food sharing and how this things could be documented in
OpenStreetMap.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails

- New Proposed feature "food sharing"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing

- New Proposed feature "donation of goods"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods

- Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new amenity=give_box tag
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA


Thanks for your patience and perseverance, Markus!

It's clear that give boxes will be approved as a feature. The only
remaining questions I see are:

1. What's the best tag for them? (Some people don't like "give_box" --
maybe an opportunity to experiment with ranked-choice voting?)

2. What related amenities are distinct enough that they deserve their
own separate tags?
 - Public bookcase, obviously.
 - Separating the food sharing amenities seems like a good idea. I'd be
in favor of a single tag to which refrigerated=yes could be added to
indicate a public refrigerator.
 - I like the idea of a separate tag for hiker boxes, because (as I
mentioned in the public refrigerator thread) it's very common to have
them as part of another map feature like post office, shop, hotel, or
campsite, so simply being able to add hiker_box=yes would be great.
 - I've never heard the term "blessing box" before but it seems like
they'd best be classified as either food sharing or give box, depending
on the inventory.

Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Markus Peloso]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi
After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining is the same as no vote" and the 
change of the Proposal process page I reopen the voting, maybe someone wants to 
change their vote or add a comment.

In the meantime we have got some new inputs:

Summary
- We hade discuss about give box, hiker box, public refrigerator, free pantry 
and food sharing and how this things could be documented in OpenStreetMap. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails
- New Proposed feature "food sharing" 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing
- New Proposed feature "donation of goods" 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods
- Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new amenity=give_box tag 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA

Best regards
Markus (ToastHawaii)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Warin]

On 15/3/20 6:25 pm, Tomas Straupis wrote:

2020-03-15, sk, 08:53 Warin rašė:

There is no real 'force' on a mapper to do anything. If a mapper chooses not to 
use the subtags then they don't have to.

   landuse=meadow was mention together with natural=grassland etc. If
it is only about subtags meadow=* - I'm fine with that.


Ok. So meadow must have grass etc. But it also must be used for grazing or 
producing 'hay'.

And that is the part that is missing from some uses.

By placing the use first I hope to reduce the misuse and place some emphases on 
the land use aspect rather than the fast reader just seeing the grass reference.




Similar can be said of many sub tags. If mappers want to map it then give them 
a way to do so in a logical manner.

   Sure. That is why I commented. Amalgamating landuse for map
rendering is not a trivial task.


Off topic, but indeed.

There are large areas of central Australia used for grazing that do not fit 
this 'meadow' description - nor should they,

Possibly landuse=grazing with natural=scrub or some other land cover tag could 
be used there.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Tomas Straupis]

2020-03-15, sk, 08:53 Warin rašė:
> There is no real 'force' on a mapper to do anything. If a mapper chooses not 
> to use the subtags then they don't have to.

  landuse=meadow was mention together with natural=grassland etc. If
it is only about subtags meadow=* - I'm fine with that.

> Similar can be said of many sub tags. If mappers want to map it then give 
> them a way to do so in a logical manner.

  Sure. That is why I commented. Amalgamating landuse for map
rendering is not a trivial task.

-- 
Tomas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Warin]

On 15/3/20 5:01 pm, Tomas Straupis wrote:

Why would you want to "force" using more than one class for meadows
when absolute majority of maps will not need more that one class?


Not certain what the above refers to? I'll take it as meadow=perpetual.

There is no real 'force' on a mapper to do anything. If a mapper chooses 
not to use the subtags then they don't have to.


Similar can be said of many sub tags. If mappers want to map it then 
give them a way to do so in a logical manner.


If any renders care to display it or not is their choice.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Warin]

On 15/3/20 4:55 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

One is a land use the other a land cover.

In practice they are both types of vegetation (grass + similar).

Mappers have to base their tagging off of what can be seen: that's the
type of vegetation (grass and other herbaceous plants), plus other
clues such as fences, the presence of grazing animals, or other signs
of mowing for hay or grazing.


Only the presence of grazing animal says 'landuse=meadow'.

Grass alone may be a field in crop rotation where it is left fallow.




The grass is not there once cut

Generallly there is still a couple of centimeters of grass leaves
remaining after mowing for hay. It looks like a mowed lawn, or the
rough of a golf course, not nearly as short as the fairway or green.
(Source: I used to work "bucking hay", lifting hay bales onto the
truck, during high school)


I have several generation of farmers in my family.

I too have maneuvered hay bales, driven tractors, helped milk cows etc etc.



On 3/15/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 15/3/20 4:36 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Unfortunately, a slight change to the description on the wiki will not
stop mappers from using landuse=meadow for a wide variety of features.


Usually these are 'armchair mappers'. What they typically see is land cover
not a land use.


Currently there is even a tag meadow=perpetual for "meadows which are
maintained by natural environmental conditions", which I would
normally tag as natural=grassland.

However, I do think that the description needs to say that it is
mainly covered in grass and similar non-woody plants


There would be nothing wrong with tagging both

landuse=meadow

with

natural=grassland (or similar)

One is a land use the other a land cover.


There are many areas of rangeland in semi-arid regions where the main
vegetations is scrub or dwarf scrub (bushes and dwarf shrubs), where
the primary landuse is grazing cattle or sheep. These areas are not
tagged as landuse=meadow, because they are not a meadow or pasture:
there is not much grass. Many of them can be tagged as natural=heath
or natural=scrub, describing the semi-natural vegetation.

Here sheep give way to cattle in the more arid regions.


The presence of mainly grass (or sedges, clover, other herbaceous
plants) is just as important as the presence of grazing or occasional
hay-cutting, to define a meadow or pasture.


But grass can be present without being a meadow.



The grass is not there once cut, the remains are stubble. Hence the word
'usually' can be employed?


- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/15/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

The present description of landuse=meadow is;

An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily vegetated by grass and
other
non-woody plants, mainly used for hay or grazing.

That places the land cover before the land use. The emphases should be
on
the land use, the land use should be first?

Possibly a better description:

An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily used to produce hay or for
grazing of animals. Usually vegetated by grass and other non-woody
plants.



I am trying to get mappers not to use this for areas of grass land that
could be more appropriatly tagged natural=grassland.

Thoughts?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

[Tomas Straupis]

Why would you want to "force" using more than one class for meadows
when absolute majority of maps will not need more that one class?

-- 
Tomas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging