Far better to ask the original mapper via a changeset comment than involve
the whole community in something which may be a trivial point.
If issues arise, for instance, some mappers using it for a particular
purpose then is the time to bring it to more general attention. For any
given key there is a long tail of unusual values, but in general they have
very little impact on the overall picture, particularly as many times more
widely used tags for the same key are added every day. (The exception is as
Simon Poole pointed out yesterday, when a tagging error creeps into the
editor presets).
Jerry
On 29 July 2018 at 04:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I'm presently targeting low use, inappropriate and non rendering values of
> landuse.
>
> Presently looking at landuse=scrub .. as a human use of the land I don't
> think scrub is one.
>
> It is a land cover and would be better tagged as natural=scrub, it makes
> sense and it renders!
>
>
> While doing this I can across this Way: 250644200 tagged as landuse=wood
> .. from 2013.
>
> It is adjacent to Way: 250644211 tagged landuse=scrub.
>
> This area should all be tagged natural=scrub .. no trees evident in
> current imagery.
>
>
> Are that any disagreement with;
>
>
> * landuse=scrub is better tagged as natural=scrub?
>
>
> * landuse=wood is better tagged as natural=wood?
>
>
> * that this particular area is better updated using the present imagery?
>
>
> Note that a past edit was 'repaired' by woodpeck_repair in 2015 on the
> Way: 250644200.
>
> Personally I see these as global issues rather than local issues. But
> there you go.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
