On 16/11/2010, at 20.45, Peter Wendorff wrote:
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?
surface is a property of something man-made, i.e. it's in the human
geography domain. It makes perfect sense for roads and traffic
infrastructure. As a matter of lingual preference, I also prefer
"surface" to describe something 2-dimensional, i.e. I do not like e.g.
surface=building. Generally, surface is the property of something else.
-- Morten
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
