2011/1/29 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: > and just like previous threads I'm still to be convinced we need > landcover=*, I just don't see the point of introducing a 3rd type that > only serves to confuse things.
basically the idea was that natural could be restricted to geographical features. This is in line with most of the tags there. coastline, cliff, spring, bay, cave_entrance, beach, volcano, peak and many more are all geographical features. They should not be mixed up with physical landcoverage like "mud". So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it is: "The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which can be used to supply extra information about the surface in conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features. " So it is meant to be "additional" what landcover is not (can be used exclusively). Landcover seems to the logical counterpart of landuse, it is a widely used term and will facilitate understanding the tagging scheme. Surface=paved does make sense, landcover=paved doesn't IMHO. surface=trees doesn't sound well. landcover=trees is a perfect statement. If you look at the documented surface values: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface you will find that all of those are about the surface of highways, you can also see this by looking at the pictures. Landcover would be used differently and would mainly have different values. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
