John Baker wrote:
The wiki is a consensus of opinion over the years about how to tag things. The lack of respect for this I find staggering.
It would be nice if there WAS a consensus. There are a number of 'contradictions' and the area of landuse vs natural has been debated many times and I don't think any of the current 'selections' accurately describe the situation so there is still room for improvement.
The general consensus seems to be that 'landuse' is used where an area is managed or has been artificially created and natural where there is no discernible management. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dgrassland highlights some of the subtle differences, and there is a valid argument for natural=meadow co existing with landuse=meadow since there are still some remaining natural meadowlands, or should that be natural=grassland/grassland=meadow ? I don't see the need for the 'grasslands' here at all - just use meadow,veld,pampas or what ever with natural. 'wood' is another area where there are managed and unmanaged woodland which is not forest.
landcover was I think proposed at one time to remove the distinction between managed and unmanaged but in reality the distinction IS important even if it's use is not being applied properly. So what checks are you making that there is not such a distinction between the areas that you arbitrarily changing?
-- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
