I do agree with Mike Thompson's statement: "If neither of the two tags being discussed (landuse=forest, natural=wood) are appropriate for tagging a generic area covered by trees (regardless if it is "virgin", "managed"), it would be really helpful to have a tag that could be used for this (i.e. indicate what the *landcover* is). This information is useful when navigating the back country." Yet, I
I feel that landuse cannot be made to mean landcover (because that concept doesn't make sense) natural= can perhaps be a subset of landcover, but it's awkward because of landuse So, I'd like to see a landcover= tag, and to have a set of definitions based on a landcover schema that has been established via peer review in professional geography. Given that, one can define 'natural=wood' to be a shorthand for landcover=trees or whatever it turns out to be. In landuse=retail and residential, we use buildings, parking lots, roads, ball fields, etc. to show landcover, sort of. Somewhat separately, there's a related tension in the default render. USGS topo maps (that I often look to for example), show landcover with tints, basically. The default mapnik render (and mkgmap versions) shows landuse with tints. That's ok, but I think it's at best very challenging to get a render that shows both landuse and landcover in a way that makes everyone happy. Perhaps crosshatcing for use, and color for cover, at least in the conservation/forestry and rock/grass/scrub/trees/water axes.
pgphUh2N2UM7c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
