On 03.08.2015 00:55, Daniel Koć wrote:
> I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, it's
> quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just
> about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a generic
> tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper if it's natural or
> not ("forest" vs "wood").
>
> Do you agree with this idea?
No, because the landcover=* key is just nonsense. There is no definition for
that key. What does landcover mean? Vegetation? Soil? Atmosphere? Buildings?
Ocean? Everything we map is landcover in some respect. You could use
landcover=motorway instead of highway=motorway, and landcover=playground
instead of leisure=playground. The landcover key matches all and nothing.
Furthermore, landcover=trees cannot serve as a substitute for landuse=forest
or natural=wood, because forests/woods not only consist of trees, but also
of shrubs, herbs, fungi, mosses, lichens, algae, animals, water, soil,
gases, and diaspores.
If you cannot decide between landuse=forest and natural=wood, take either
one. Just like picking a tracktype.
--
Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
