In your examples you are mixing functional and physical tags. At first, we actually deprecate landuse=grass so that is -1 tag for grass.
"Even if you succeed in replacing over 5 million uses of landuse=grass with landcover=grass there will still be areas of landuse=meadow and natural=grassland which are not precisely defined". Refining those tags is outside of the scope of this proposal. Fact is that the physical landcover is grass. That is why landcover=grass is implied on these tags. Tags like leisure=recreation_ground and landuse=greenfield are functional tags. They describe a function. A recreation ground can consist of multiple landcover. Therefore, leisure=recreation_ground does not imply landcover=grass but it can contain landcover=grass but also other physical coverages. leisure=pitch, as described, on the proposal should be tagged with surface=grass. That implies landcover=grass but the surface tag it self is a property of something (e.g. a pitch or highway), not a main feature it self. Kind regards, Vincent 16 feb. 2023 05:00 van joseph_eisenberg_at_gmail_com_mb...@simplelogin.co: > > This email failed anti-phishing checks when it was received by SimpleLogin, > be careful with its content. More info on > anti-phishing measure > <https://simplelogin.io/docs/getting-started/anti-phishing/> > > Problem: there are 3+ tags for areas of mostly grass with sometimes > overlapping meaning, in 2 different keys (landuse=meadow, natural=grassland, > landuse=grass) > > Solution(?): 4+ tags for areas of grass with overlapping meaning, in 3 > different keys > > I don’t see how this will be an improvement. > > Even if you succeed in replacing over 5 million uses of landuse=grass with > landcover=grass there will still be areas of landuse=meadow and > natural=grassland which are not precisely defined, not to mention other areas > with grass surface such as leisure=pitch and leisure=recreation_ground, > landuse=village_green, landuse=greenfield, etc > > -Joseph Eisenberg > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:38 PM Cartographer10 via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> We have significantly updated the proposal. We have removed most of the >> proposed values and only trees and grass are left. This to reduce the scope >> of the proposal. >> >> We also tried to better explain that with this proposal, we aim to improve >> the tagging scheme in the long term. This proposal is basically a building >> block other can build upon to improve the tagging scheme (e.g >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest#Which_tag_should_be_used>> ?). >> >> I hope that this address some of the raised concerns and creates more >> meaning for the proposal. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Vincent >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
