Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

7. Jun 2018 11:53 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com : > On 7 June 2018 at 10:46, Christoph Hormann <> o...@imagico.de > > > wrote: >> There are tons of established tags in OSM where the key makes no sense >> at all. Don't get me started

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Rendering landcover=trees is not the same as deprecating landuse=forest. It just offers the option to tag tree-covered areas on a different landuse such as industrial, military, residential or commercial. I do expect a shift from landuse=forest to landcover=trees, as soon as it would be

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

I don’t think anyone has asked for the deprecation of landuse=forest, landuse=grass or natural=scrub or whatever. Instead, to focus back down to the original issue, what is asked for is proper support for landcover in the default map style (in addition to whatever is already in there)

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

I responded to "what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?" I see nothing wrong with using landcover=trees. But in context of this discussion I understood "bad choices" as landuse=forest. BTW, I am happy to fix some broken tagging - for example I am regularly hunting downdemolished=yes

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 7 June 2018 at 18:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I responded to "what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?" > > I see nothing wrong with using landcover=trees. > > But in context of this discussion I understood "bad choices" as > landuse=forest. Sorry, I didn't mean to deprecate

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 7 June 2018 at 19:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 7. Jun 2018 19:25 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > >> Sorry, I didn't mean to deprecate landuse=forest. What I meant is: >> what prevents us from fixing bad choices? > > > It depends. Can you be more precise what you specifically mean by this?

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > Rendering landcover=trees is not the same as deprecating landuse=forest. > > It just offers the option to tag tree-covered areas on a different landuse > such as industrial, military, residential or commercial. > > I do expect a shift from

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

For many years now I've been pretty happy to use landuse=forest pretty much everywhere I found a group of trees. Yes, in some cases the semantics irked me a bit, but landuse=forest always rendered fine. I used what worked for me. On many occasions however I've seen newbies remove or retag

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> But deprecating landuse=forest of redefining lanes tag is not going to happen. I believe you, and I think active deprecation is not advocated in this discussion. It's about facilitating a better alternative beside landuse=forest, for situations where te landuse is in fact niet forestry but

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

7. Jun 2018 19:25 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com : > Sorry, I didn't mean to deprecate landuse=forest. What I meant is: > what prevents us from fixing bad choices? > It depends. Can you be more precise what you specifically mean by this?

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I responded to "what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?" > > I see nothing wrong with using landcover=trees. > > But in context of this discussion I understood "bad choices" as > landuse=forest. > > BTW, I am happy to fix

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> On Jun 7, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Michael Andersen wrote: > > For many years now I've been pretty happy to use landuse=forest pretty much > everywhere I found a group of trees. Yes, in some cases the semantics irked > me > a bit, but landuse=forest always rendered fine. I used what worked for

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

torsdag den 7. juni 2018 21.13.22 CEST skrev Tod Fitch: > > On Jun 7, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Michael Andersen wrote: > > > > For many years now I've been pretty happy to use landuse=forest pretty > > much > > everywhere I found a group of trees. Yes, in some cases the semantics > > irked me a bit,

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is actually how the land is used. So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently. I would encourage the use of landcover=trees for areas within landuse=, or even within areas without a landuse (e.g because

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

If you find a way to do it, by all means, share, since the lane tagging issue is directly affected. On Thu, Jun 7, 2018, 05:52 Peter Elderson wrote: > Providing a more consistent while still backwards compatible tagging > scheme for a feature is not the end of freedom. It just helps to answer

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

7. Jun 2018 19:42 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com : > On 7 June 2018 at 19:26, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: >> 7. Jun 2018 19:25 by >> selfishseaho...@gmail.com >> >>

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

For me it was the first confrontation too. I got "don't tag for the renderer", apparently that was a mortal sin, and in the same message "just tag landuse=forest even if it isn't landuse and it is not forest, it's just to show the trees". Then when the trees are neatly organized in a grid just

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

7. Jun 2018 21:13 by t...@fitchdesign.com : > I happily started out tagging areas covered with trees as landuse=forest > until there was a long thread here about how that was incorrect. There was a > very vocal contingent that stressed that landuse=forest was for

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

7. Jun 2018 19:41 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > and that a preferable spelling might be landcover=trees (if that is what is > meant) or landuse=forestry (if the land is actively managed as a producing > forest) > > > This is not 'deprecating'

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote: I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is actually how the land is used. So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently. So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5 million uses?

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

& it's an impossible question to answer, but how many of those 3.5 million tags are on "areas of land managed for forestry"? :-) Thanks Graeme On 8 June 2018 at 08:11, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Unwillingness to promote highly-controversial tag that duplicates > currently existing tags, > > is generally not supported and is discussed rather than used. > > Tagging that is not supported by the renderer is unlikely ever to gain

[Tagging] Lifeguards

Hi Just raised (or re-raised) the suggestion that lifeguard stations https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aemergency should be rendered https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4918#event-1668877116, as it could be a potentially life-saving addition to the map. Bryan had quite correctly

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Message: 6 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 12:32:32 +0200 From: Christoph Hormann To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag On Thursday 07 June 2018, Selfish Seahorse wrote: There are tons of

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

That's not what I meant. Significant areas of managed forest is what I meant, just as it's described in the wiki. I meant keep the meaning, keep the uses for now, but facilitate a better alternative at the same time, for those cases where the type of forest/wood is not (yet) known and for patches

[Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging (was: Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag)

On 06/08/2018 01:29 AM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: > I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a > brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.  And I wouldn't mind if > these keys were enforced from now on.  And I wouldn't mind that I would > have to relearn all the

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thursday 07 June 2018, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > > > The meanings of the key and value should make logical sense .. > > other wise it is a convoluted thing that is being thrust on all > > mappers and data consumers. > > The meaning should not migrate over time by the misuse of the tag > > by a

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 07-06-18 00:51, Warin wrote: > On 07/06/18 00:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> >> 2018-06-06 16:39 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann > >: >> There probably is a strong majority among OSM mappers that >> (rightfully) >> think key semantics are irrelevant for the

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

sent from a phone > On 7. Jun 2018, at 10:46, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Get over it, accept that people have made bad choices > of keys when choosing tags and concentrate on encouraging and helping > people to choose suitable keys when newly creating tags (in a > productive way of

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 7 June 2018 at 10:46, Christoph Hormann wrote: > There are tons of established tags in OSM where the key makes no sense > at all. Don't get me started on 'waterway' for example. But that is > how OSM works. Get over it, accept that people have made bad choices > of keys when choosing tags

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thursday 07 June 2018, Selfish Seahorse wrote: > > There are tons of established tags in OSM where the key makes no > > sense at all. Don't get me started on 'waterway' for example. But > > that is how OSM works. Get over it, accept that people have made > > bad choices of keys when choosing

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Providing a more consistent while still backwards compatible tagging scheme for a feature is not the end of freedom. It just helps to answer the all-time question: how is this done? with an answer that makes more sense. Taggers will adopt it because it makes sense. Op do 7 jun. 2018 12:33