On 17 December 2010 11:37, Pieren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Simone Saviolo <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> Of course, if you're drawing landuses that cover tenths of sq. kms, >> you're probably willing to ignore a mapping so detailed to describe >> depots. >> >> > Yes and it would fine if we could continue in that way. Since landuses > shouldn't overlap, you will force people to use multipolygons (something > that not anybody can do) when it's not necessary. With this logic, we could > also tag schools, hospitals, parks, etc with landuse where today we don't > care about the surrounding landuse when we map them. >
I agree. Landuse is really to give a context. If we start adding more and more landuses, we will end with a mosaic that will be close to impossible to work with. Trying to be as exhaustive as possible in landuse leads nowhere. Does that mean we also have to create landuse for each kind of building since they represent something different? Let's keep landuse usage to a reasonable amount and let's precise usage when we need it with accurate description like school, and proposal like industrial=vehicle_coverage. Emilie Laffray
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
