On 02-Nov-17 09:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
On 02/11/17 09:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
ONE tag to say what? You are still owing an answer to this.
I think the problem is similar to the multiple areas problem. There are
several layers of complexity so should landuse=residential enclose the
whole area including the grass and wooded areas or should they all be
isolated areas? Adding leisure=park within landuse=residential area just
makes things even more difficult? Just what is a small area of trees?
within the leisure=park or landuse=forest because it's not a
natural=wood 'creation' ... it's something the planning authorities have
requested as perhaps a barrier or simply as an amenity ... or has been
preserved as it has been there for hundreds of years ...
We need to build a proper hierarchy of LANDUSE into which more detail
can be added if required?
If you want to tag the presence of trees then it is a land cover you
want, not a land use.
The difference between a large group of trees compared to a smaller group?
What next - the difference between a large group of houses and a smaller
group?
landuse=forest does not mean there are trees there all the time, they
could be logged and later replanted.
With landuse=residential there are no sub tags to indicate the kind of
houses there or apartment blocks, colours, height etc.
If you want that kind of detail then map the physical houses with that
detail.
You could do the same with trees .. map each one with its height,
species and genus .. I'll leave that to others...
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
