sent from a phone
Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.
you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe an area where
trees have just been logged and will soon be planted
On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
was (yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way -
landuse=wood, natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).
Err disagree,
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it was
(yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way - landuse=wood,
natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).
Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea
W dniu 17.08.2015 13:20, Warin napisał(a):
On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
was (yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way -
landuse=wood, natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used
On 16/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:
landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
was for that tag was to mean
On 16/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
which landuse is good for an area where trees have just been logged and
will soon be planted again?
landuse=forest, which I've always reasoned of as being landuse=forestry :)
Which landuse value is suitable for an area
where
sent from a phone
Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
would
support such proposal.
how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects? If you
do the latter
On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
would support such proposal.
how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes?
On 17/08/2015, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
was
The problem with that is that the map will be wrong for 5-15 years
(depending on what kind of trees are being grown). I
sent from a phone
Am 17.08.2015 um 17:05 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas.
When would you need that ?
when a forest with a name is part of a bigger forest with a different name
cheers
Martin
moltonel molto...@gmail.com writes:
This is a perfect example of the confusion around landuse=forest vs
natural=wood. Size and density ? Managed ? Named ? Usage type ? The
curent osm data is a mix of all these criterias an more; at this stage
it is hopeless for the consumer to extract more
On 15/08/2015 21:42, Lester Caine wrote:
My quick fix for any new rendering is simply to switch off 'farmland' so
that the tree blocks it masks actually display.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245442613 is an example of the problem,
as are the adjacent areas to the right, while to the left
2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:
landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
it is used by most
On 15/08/2015 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
... And then there are areas where actually trees grow, sometimes in a forest
and sometimes elsewhere. That's where landcover trees seems appropriate for me.
Maybe a diary entry explaining your point of view on this in detail
would help
I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.
2015-08-16 20:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2015-08-16 19:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original
intention
was for that
2015-08-16 16:19 GMT+02:00 ajt1...@gmail.com ajt1...@gmail.com:
what meaning you think natural=wood and landuse=forest have? Pictures
you've taken of the areas would be really helpful too.
did you actually read what I have written above? Are there any specific
parts that weren't clear that
On 16/08/2015 21:27, Lester Caine wrote:
The tree areas that are within the farmland area are NOT now farmland
and probably never were
Can you point to a tree area within farmland? I couldn't see one when
I had a quick look. It's slightly confusing because the multipolygon is
pulling the
2015-08-16 19:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
it is used by most mappers.
which landuse is good for an area where trees
On 15 August 2015 14:23:09 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to the
natural (as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
W dniu 15.08.2015 15:23, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to
the natural (as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
natural and landuse is about
W dniu 15.08.2015 13:50, Christoph Hormann napisał(a):
The suggestion of using landcover=trees is generally based on the idea
that both landuse=forest and natural=wood have a distinct meaning and
there are tree covered areas which are neither of these. But in
reality this is not the case and
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl:
In my opinion suggestion of using landcover=trees is based on the lack of
clarity of these tags. Forest suggests it is curated somehow (landuse),
wood suggests it is not (natural), but nobody is sure anymore what
W dniu 15.08.2015 15:16, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
IMHO it would rather encourage mappers to make more sense out of these
than it is now. I'm myself adding a pointless landuse=forest for every
landcover=trees now (for the renderer), and I guess most other mappers
do the same. I will
Hi
I think that discussion should have been titled Stop tagging
natural=wood and landuse=forest differently.
As I've said have a unified render just covers up that we're tagging
incorrectly. There should only be one primary tag to describe large area
of trees.
Whether it be landcover or
On 15/08/15 16:31, Dave F. wrote:
Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm not that concerned
about but it really should only be one option.
I think that there is a European definition for 'landuse' as part of the
standards?
Certainly the documentation I have for the NLPG database
On 8/15/2015 8:13 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
I asked about it here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817
but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion
The issue was closed because it was solved - the rendering was unified.
The
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
As I've said have a unified render just covers up that we're tagging
incorrectly. There should only be one primary tag to describe large area of
trees.
Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm
W dniu 15.08.2015 21:42, Paul Norman napisał(a):
On 8/15/2015 8:13 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
I asked about it here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817
but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion
The issue was closed because it
On 15/08/15 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
For rendering purposes, I would use a fill mainly for the landcover, while
the names (and no fill) would come from natural. Landuse would be mainly for
specialist maps, but of course this is up to the rendering style devs to
ultimately decide.
29 matches
Mail list logo
