On 15 May 2010 05:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional
Even you seem to agree this is a good idea... > geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a > given area in a generalized way. Unfortunately this is not true when > it come to OSM: just open your eyes. Have you ever downloaded a piece > of Berlin? You would be astonished ;-). Our landuse is often > fragmented (IMHO not bad, because if there is different stuff, how > else should you point that out? It is easier to summarize different > landuses to one according to type and size than it is to divide 1 big > generalized landuse automatically into all of it's subparts). OSM is all about evolving and improving over time, just because something was done in the past, like ways with > 2000 nodes, doesn't mean it should be done in future, especially when it would be nice to tag both land use and land cover on the same area. > How many landcover-tags are there in OSM? Is grass, garages or > landfill a landuse? Another example: cut off (burned down) forest: grass would be a land cover, garages would be land use (buildings would be land cover), landfill could be both, although they may have put grass on top of a former landfill. > this would probably still be called landuse=forest in an official map, > but in OSM if there are no trees it will not be a forest. landuse=forest, surface=scorched_earth :D > On the other hand: I would like to see this mess tidyed up. In this > case I suggest to first change (extend) render rules and then I filed a bug for surface=grass, we also possibly need one for natural=beach, surface=sand|gravel etc... > encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for > the renderers: because it is sad to tag "correct" and you don't see > anything on the map ;-). I don't promote a cluttered or coloured map: I wonder if there is anything that could be done to stream line this process, I guess a new thread on all possible surfaces and possible and then figuring out how they should render, and finally submitting a patch or at least a bug report. > I do promote rendering of lots of tags, but they don't have to get all > different colours. Also few colours (i.e. many features/tags with the > same colour) can be a way to do it. Before working out colours, or at least in conjunction with, perhaps we should try to compile a list of land covers and document them. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
