On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Lennard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27-9-2010 10:16, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> Landuse should be covered by land cover (and buildings) where said >> cover exists. For example a landuse=retail area may be over half >> amenity=parking areas. > > And yet we call forests/heath/grass/etc land *use* instead of land *cover*. > > It feels like we're rehashing old discussions. > > What do you know, we are: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2009-October/000106.html
It's not really the same discussion. Clearly a lake can be part of a residential area (think of a bunch of lots on the lake with a private dock extending from each one), but a lake will not be part of a meadow or forest. But what I'm mostly concerned with is having a limited number of "top-level" landuse values. For example a large residential neighborhood can be tagged landuse=residential, but there's no similar value for an area full of government buildings or a tourist strip. (But back to the linked discussion: I use nested landuse polygons all the time; a named residential neighborhood can have a small retail area within it that's considered to be part of the neighborhood. This is about the largest polygons which may or may not have smaller ones within them.) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
