2014-10-20 13:50 GMT+02:00 Rovastar <notificati...@github.com>: > Sorry for derailing this I know it should be on tagging. >
+1, I copied tagging so we can continue ;-) > > Landcover is from what I can see a pet project of yours and with minimum > adoption. > it is true that I have started using landcover and am advocating this (for good reason I believe, because "landuse" is generally a tag about _use_ . It is not a fictious word, but one with clear meaning, established in cartography, urbanism, architecture etc. and deviating from the meaning is not helping anybody. My aim is indeed to make mapping simpler and keep inherent logics). And I recall precisely how landuse=grass was born in 2008 on the German ML (there were already people foreseeing what now apparently has happened, asking to use a less generic value). > Landcover=grass doesn't even have a wiki page. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landcover And some taginfo usage stats on it > landuse=grass > 2012-Dec = 1,112 > 2013-July = 2,413 > 2014-October (Now) = 3,190 > So infact slowing in usage. It is a fringe tag at best and not in popular > use despite a one man crusade to champion this. > honestly, I have mapped maybe 10 landcover=grass in all those years. While I am pushing landcover=trees putting it on all tree covered areas that I map (also because it really hurts to put landuse=forest on every small patch of trees), I don't use the other landcover values a lot, so to me it seems that there are indeed other mappers who have adopted this (despite the sparse documentation you mentioned, there is only a proposal page). You can see this also in this map: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover#map
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
