> On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Am 18.08.2015 um 22:54 schrieb John Willis :
>>
>> What if its grass along a (maintained) river embankment, but roped off so no
>> one can walk on it, as it is not a park?
>
>
> meadow? what's the
sent from a phone
> Am 18.08.2015 um 22:54 schrieb John Willis :
>
> What if its grass along a (maintained) river embankment, but roped off so no
> one can walk on it, as it is not a park?
meadow? what's the use there? slow down the erosion?
>
> What about the grass surrounding an airport
> On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> landuse=street_decoration
What if its grass along a (maintained) river embankment, but roped off so no
one can walk on it, as it is not a park?
What about the grass surrounding an airport (Narita's is well trimmed)?
What about
sent from a phone
> Am 18.08.2015 um 10:51 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
>
> There is already leisure=garden. It (or [leisure=garden, gerden=flowerbed] or
> maybe leisure=flowerbed)
> would be far better than yet another too detailed landuse value.
there are also garden:type and garden:style,
2015-08-17 18:50 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
> Or landuse=flowerbed and possibly species=Mesembryanthemum crystallinum.
>
There is already leisure=garden. It (or [leisure=garden, gerden=flowerbed]
or maybe leisure=flowerbed)
would be far better than yet another too detailed landuse value.
Then we can create some biome tags to handle more complex tagging, but being
able to define commonly encountered landcovers is necessary.
My city has huge flood control embankmnets along the natural river in certain
places. There is abandoned sections of asphalt and concrete in patches in odd
On 17.08.2015 00:29, John Willis wrote:
> This is the crux of the landcover argument.
>
> Because landuse=* implies what the land is used for - therefore man-altered
> and decided usefulness. natural=* was then interpreted by taggers to be the
> opposite - the "natural" state of the land which
> On Aug 16, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>
> Not everything is "use". E.h. hazard=* is rather the opposite of use. Most
> natural=* features denote what's there, not how it is used. Well, you *can*
> use a swamp, but if you don't use it, it is a swamp anyway, so this is
> really
On 16.08.2015 04:00, Daniel Koć wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover
There is no definition of the landcover=* key. The page features a wide
range of keys including amenity=* and tourism=*.
Even if there were a definition, it would be the wrong place. The definition
belongs to th
On 16.08.2015 09:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'm not very good at refraining from replying to trolls, but I think this
> time I have to do it...
This is not the first time you refrain from replying when it comes to a
definition of your landcover=* key. You simply have not managed to make up
sent from a phone
> Am 16.08.2015 um 01:41 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> That depends on observation time. E.g. much of Europe is covered by fog in
> Autumn. So this will be landcover=fog.
I'm not very good at refraining from replying to trolls, but I think this time
I have to do it...
W dniu 16.08.2015 1:27, Friedrich Volkmann napisał(a):
No, because the landcover=* key is just nonsense. There is no
definition for
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover
that key. What does landcover mean? Vegetation? Soil? Atmosphere?
Buildings?
Ocean? Everything we map is landcover
On 16.08.2015 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> grass isn't a "use", landuse=grass is nonsense.(IMHO)
Why, the land is used to grow grass. Thus, landuse=grass.
> landcover=x doesn't mean there is only x, it says the area appears as covered
> with x
That depends on observation time. E.g. much
On 03.08.2015 00:55, Daniel Koć wrote:
> I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, it's
> quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just
> about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a generic
> tag for trees areas, when it's no
sent from a phone
> Am 16.08.2015 um 00:59 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> The
> landuse may be grass, but the landcover isn't just grass.
grass isn't a "use", landuse=grass is nonsense.(IMHO)
landcover=x doesn't mean there is only x, it says the area appears as covered
with x
and x might
On 10.08.2015 12:29, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> A pity - I just happen to have a problem that this proposal would solve...
> Take a look at this charming corner of Normandy: http://binged.it/1ht3p7v
>
> On the left, a dense urban location that is clearly landuse=residential. On
> the right, what i
If the grass is municipally maintained the I use landuse=grass (I'm on
the fence about using landcover). If I have the time or inclination I'll
separate it from residential with a multipolygon relation.
If it private then I mark it as landuse=residential & probably leave it
at that. If you ant
sent from a phone
> Am 10.08.2015 um 12:29 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier :
>
> To me, it seems that mapping this area as a combination of
> landuse=residential and landcover=grass would be most fitting.
just do it
> I have thought about using the landuse=residential + natural=grass
> combina
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> landuse=residential + natural=grass combination
> instead, but those lawns do not strike me as natural.
The grass is natural (plants), unless it's some sort of man made
plastic artificial grass imitation). The key natural never was only
about geographical features, nor w
W dniu 10.08.2015 12:29, Jean-Marc Liotier napisał(a):
To me, it seems that mapping this area as a combination of
landuse=residential and landcover=grass would be most fitting. I have
thought about using the landuse=residential + natural=grass
combination instead, but those lawns do not strike m
On 03/08/2015 09:20, christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote:
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover)
from the cultural landscape (landuse). But the propos
W dniu 03.08.2015 11:59, Tom Pfeifer napisał(a):
christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote on 2015-08-03 09:20:
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover)
from
christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote on 2015-08-03 09:20:
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the
cultural landscape (landuse).
> But the pro
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the
cultural landscape (landuse). But the proposal never got the support it
needed to get established.
cheers He
sent from a phone
> Am 03.08.2015 um 00:55 schrieb Daniel Koć :
>
> landcover=trees has no Wiki page,
it does
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
> it's quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just
> about 1% of forest/wood uses) and
I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, it's
quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just
about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a
generic tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper if it's
natural or n
26 matches
Mail list logo
