To clarify, I'm not advocating the use of landcover=* tag (I'm on the
fence).
However I've never liked that fact that an attribute of tree areas
(managed) was differentiated with primary key tags instead of sub-tags
such as:
landuse/landcover=wood/trees
managed=yes/no
landcover=trees is already in use so it wont really fragment it further.
The unifying of the render doesn't reduce fragmentation either, it just
papers over the cracks in tagging inconsistencies. This new rendering,
which I support in principle, should not negate the need to sort out
these inconsistencies, even if is millions of entities.
Cheers
Dave F.
On 15/08/2015 12:50, Christoph Hormann wrote:
The question is how much is actually gained from this when
landuse=forest and natural=wood are practically identical anyway and
mean the same, namely 'this area is densely covered by trees'.
Rendering landcover=trees as well would just further fragment tagging.
The suggestion of using landcover=trees is generally based on the idea
that both landuse=forest and natural=wood have a distinct meaning and
there are tree covered areas which are neither of these. But in
reality this is not the case and due to the widespread use of these
tags it is likely this will never happen, it would require a
systematic re-assessment of millions of features.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
