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