2012/8/3 Johan Jönsson <[email protected]>: > > To make my question more clear: > IF we where to use landcover, what would then the value for grasslands and > lawns be? > > =herbaceous > =herbs > =grass
I would use: landcover=grass and (if necessary) grass=herbs In my opinion it would be easier and more robust for data consumers. They only need to support landcover=grass and if we later on add some refinement (like grass=herbs) consumers are still able to process this data. If for some consumer the refinement is an improvement it can also support grass=herbs, if not no actions are necessary. But on the other hand those "subkeys" are harder for mappers. That's why we will not see landcover=vegetation + vegetation=trees and similar constructs. Such hierarchical tags have the disadvantage that mappers often have to use more than one tag. Even for such common objects like forests. And mappers will simply not accept that (no matter how much templates we give them in any past, present and future editor imo). To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs. (Here I want to excuse for my english. I'm really tired and today it's even worse than usual.) > p.s. > Nice overview Imagic > d.s. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
