2014-05-05 11:45 GMT+02:00 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: > Either both "landuse" and "landcover" are always matching 100% and > then using two tags instead of one is not really an improvment. Or the > polygons are not 100% identical and you create a mess of two "land" > layers which are sometimes overlapping, sometimes not. >
I still fail to understand your problem here. Of course coverage and usage won't match 100%, that's the reason why it should be tagged with 2 tags / distinct objects where necessarily. What kind of mess are you refering to? It will conceptionally be 1 land layer (landcover) and one landuse layer (landuse), and probably even more different layers like administration, maybe geographic regions (names, these are there, but not well mappable because of blured boundaries, huge spatial extension, ...), etc. > Editing the map > with plenty of landuse polygons is already complex and I'm not > speaking for newcomers. Doubling the amount of "land" tags/polygons is > shooting ourselves in the foot. > IMHO the problem why landuse polygons add so much complexity at the moment is generalisation (huge generalized polygons, often multipolygons, extension to the road center). If people wouldn't include roads and other areas with differing landuse into big generalized polygons but would rather map small overlookable areas atomically it would make things easier for maintenance and for adding new stuff. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
