It sounds to me like we're getting back to the old argument about the difference between land-use and land-cover. Unfortunately, tags for both have been lumped together into landuse=*, (as well as some natural, man-made etc) which is why the debate reoccurs so often.
Sand is a cover, not a use. So are grass, rocks, pavement, trees, water, etc. It's common for a single landuse (eg a park) to have many different covers (eg some grass, some trees, a pond, a paved area, etc). It's also possible (though less common) for a single landcover area to have different uses - eg a single patch of grass near me is a park at one end and school grounds at the other, with no fence. We should be encouraging that any given area may have both a use type tag and a cover type tag. My personal opinion is that we should separate out the cover tags from landuse into some other tag (doesn't have to be landcover). Not because this is required, or it for easier searching, though they may be side benefits. Simply because having cover types in landuse confuses things. Stephen >> landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse >> to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the "ground" >> eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil > > Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? > (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
