On 27/10/2017 20:53, Warin wrote:
On 27-Oct-17 08:25 PM, Dave F wrote:
You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which,
seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.
*All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one
primary tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.
Your definition of 'natural' must be different for mine. :)
Quelle surprise :)
A tree that is grown in a nursery from grafted stock, planted and
nurtured in a green house and then finally planted outside ... to me
is not 'natural'.
A 'natural' tree grown from a seed that comes off a tree by natural
means, falls to the ground and than grows without human interference
to full size.
I don't really agree with this, but for the purpose of my main argument:
'Unifying the key tag for groups of trees'; 'natural' is interchangeable
with your preferred 'landcover'. What key used is arguable, but,
whichever, there should only be *one*.
--------------
? "All "purposes" should be within sub-tags. "
Umm so you would remove landuse? landuse=residential would be a
subtag .. under what?
Maybe 'purposes' was a bit confusing, I see landuse=residential as a
primary tag. Sub-tags are 'descriptive', 'adjective'. The 'cuisine' of a
restaurant, or 'managed' for woods. for example.
The 'landuse' tag when combined with forest is a misuse of a primary tag
as it's being used as an adjective.
In this case, whether it's managed or not. Actually, it's use is even
more confusing with people using it to describe the size of the area &
density of trees, which, again, should be described with sub-tags.
DaveF
---
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
