W dniu 15.08.2015 15:23, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to
the natural (as in nature) and managed "idea". Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
natural and landuse is about named entities vs. the usage by man
attribute. A group of trees in the park is sometimes a wood but never
a forest. Landcover has a point besides trees (think grass for
instance)
I didn't say it was the motivation behind introducing landcover scheme.
Wherever it came from and whatever is the difference between wood and
the forest, it is a useful scheme in itself, as I wrote - although the
higher level of uncertainity, the more useful it become.
It is always better to know something exactly than just have a general
idea, BUT if you're not sure, it's better to say it clearly than pretend
you know better. That's the recipe for a hidden disaster, like spreading
entropy in the database and tag definitions.
--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
down" [A. Cohen]
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
