Am 16.11.2010 13:51, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping<[email protected]>:
So what is the *exact* problem with surface?
it extents the usage of surface as attribute for routable entities to
all kind of entities, therefore reducing simplicity for the data
consumers with no benefit at all.
No, surface was meant (and is in fact used widely) to describe the
surface material of something, being it a highway, beach or whatever.
There is e.g. *no* problem to describe the surface of e.g. natural=beach
with that tag.
A router wouldn't try to search for surface, but for highway or alike.
It might want to analyze surface in addition to another tag.
I doesn't make sense to me, if people use surface as a "standalone" tag,
because it should always be an addition to other tags. But that's not a
problem with that tag, but how people using it in clear breach of the
definitions.
Another advantage of specialized tag "landcover" is that in contrast
with surface it by itself implies area=yes.
So what is the *exact* advantage of landcover?
well, one you cited yourself.
Did I?
Another one was written above: trees,
which are not representable with surface.
I've never argued to use surface for trees, but the well established
natural=wood / landuse=forest.
Sorry, this kind of vague "we might want to have xy because someone might
want to ..." is pretty much pointless.
this is not vague at all, and people are frequently popping up with
the landcover proposal, as there seems to be a desire for it.
Reading your new proposal page, I only see a vague definition that is in
direct conflict with landuse and natural and therefore will confuse
mappers how to tag things. It remains unclear under which circumstances
someone should use landcover, landuse and/or natural.
Regards, ULFL
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
