On 27-Oct-17 09:49 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
2017-10-27 12:25 GMT+03:00 Dave F wrote:
You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing
OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.
If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically
correct, we would have to "cut out" (create multipolygons) for each
small wood areas with 10 trees inside say residential area.
*All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary tag.
All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.
Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my
topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise.
What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy.
OSM tagging comes AFTER that.
What you are talking about looks to be the rendering into layers and
which layer comes higher than the other.
That is the choice of the render and what could be higher in one
rendering could be the lower in another rendering.
Within the data base of OSM the distinctions need to be clear between
these classifications so there is no cross over, no confusion.
Which classification is 'higher' than another has no effect on how it is
stored in the OSM data base.
And tagging is about the storage of things in the OSM data base - trying
to make it clear, organised and usable for both tagger and render.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
