Am 16.11.2010 18:48, schrieb Richard Welty:
On 11/16/10 12:43 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, that would be surface as well. I'd say the distinction is between
the surface and the coverage (which comprises the surface).
surface=bush or tree would not make any sense IMHO. surface=asphalt is
fine for the surface, the landcover would be the street which is not
only the surface of the street.
my attempt at clarification: surface is used where the mapped
entity is man-made (or modified, e.g. dirt roads.)
While I understand, what you mean, there is a weakness in that logic:
A path in the wood made by humans is man-made - so you would tag it e.g.
as surface=dirt; but if it's made by animals on their way to the water,
it's landcover=dirt?
On the other hand the "Lüneburger Heide" in Germany is man-made some 100
years ago by exploitation of the woods (kept as it is by extensive sheep
pasturing). So here it's surface?
Just for further thinking about.
regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
