2012/7/2 Martin Vonwald (Imagic) <[email protected]>: > Am 02.07.2012 um 22:09 schrieb sabas88 <[email protected]>: >> I'd opt for landcover system. > +1 for landcover. IMO the tag natural should not be used for areas (yes, I > know, currently it is used often for areas).
I think it is fine to use natural for areas (the very most of over 8 million features tagged with natural=* are actually areas: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/natural ), but I'd like to see it used for topographical features (most of all features that are currently tagged with natural are indeed topographical features, e.g. lakes, bays, woods, springs, beaches, ...) I am opposing the interpretation of "natural" as a class in contrast to "man_made", as it is not a sufficient distinction (too few main classes, hence it leads to exceptions and inconsequencies (everything natural besides x, y and foo, and bar, and z, and w, and t and... which are covered by the keys ...)). cheers, Martin cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
