2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping <[email protected]>: > 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.
do you see the difference between surface and landcover as described later in this thread? > I've never argued to use surface for trees, but the well established > natural=wood / landuse=forest. well established for what? landuse=forest is for managed forests, natural=wood (strange enough it is not for woodland) is for "unmanaged" natural forests. For all other trees there are currently no tags, besides mapping them one by one. > 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. How can "physical landcover" be in conflict with landuse? Did you read the proposal? Natural is IMHO an ideal example of a tag to diffuse clarity and create confusion, because it is a mix of all sorts of features. > It remains unclear under which circumstances someone > should use landcover, landuse and/or natural. I guess you didn't read the proposal. It states that you are encouraged to combine them, because they are orthogonal. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
