The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too often I find myself in a residential area with large gardens and trees when I expected to find a real forest based on what OSM is displaying.
So there is room for improvement. I like the landcover=trees idea, but this does not describe the complete picture. I also want t be able to indicate what is between the trees: ground, grass, grassy plants, bushes. And when is something landcover=trees + bushes and when landcover=bushes + some trees ? m. On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many >> times, <...> > > And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right -> > everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this topic is not > settled for so many years -> I suggest doing a compromise and agreeing > on ONE tag. > (Compromise is currently done on rendering/data extraction side. > Nobody cares there about natural/landuse/landcover whatever. It's one > forest and that is it) > > The only other way is to use de facto situation - natural=wood and > landuse=forest - and forget this discussion. > > P.S. And all I wanted was to talk about topology rules... BTW: here is > an example of topology rules in Lithuania: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Lithuania/Topology_rules > > -- > Tomas > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
