2014-05-05 11:45 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Either both landuse and landcover are always matching 100% and
then using two tags instead of one is not really an improvment. Or the
polygons are not 100% identical and you create a mess of two land
layers which are sometimes overlapping, sometimes not.
I still fail to understand your problem here. Of course coverage and usage
won't match 100%, that's the reason why it should be tagged with 2 tags /
distinct objects where necessarily.
What kind of mess are you refering to? It will conceptionally be 1 land
layer (landcover) and one landuse layer (landuse), and probably even more
different layers like administration, maybe geographic regions (names,
these are there, but not well mappable because of blured boundaries, huge
spatial extension, ...), etc.
Editing the map
with plenty of landuse polygons is already complex and I'm not
speaking for newcomers. Doubling the amount of land tags/polygons is
shooting ourselves in the foot.
IMHO the problem why landuse polygons add so much complexity at the moment
is generalisation (huge generalized polygons, often multipolygons,
extension to the road center). If people wouldn't include roads and other
areas with differing landuse into big generalized polygons but would rather
map small overlookable areas atomically it would make things easier for
maintenance and for adding new stuff.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
