On 03/08/2015 09:20, christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote:
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the cultural landscape (landuse). But the proposal never got the support it needed to get established.
A pity - I just happen to have a problem that this proposal would solve... Take a look at this charming corner of Normandy: http://binged.it/1ht3p7v
On the left, a dense urban location that is clearly landuse=residential. On the right, what is most definitely landuse=meadow. So what about the center ? We see residential buildings among a predominantly grass cover. In other areas, I have seen this mapped as landuse=meadow - but it is wrong because it is actually used as a residential areal.
To me, it seems that mapping this area as a combination of landuse=residential and landcover=grass would be most fitting. I have thought about using the landuse=residential + natural=grass combination instead, but those lawns do not strike me as natural.
What do you all think ? Is this a good illustration of the need for landcover=* ?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
