What about this: Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like landcover=vegetation:herbaceous:grass, landcover=herbaceous:herbs or landcover=vegetation:trees:coniferous That woudld allow precise specification as well as "something green grows there". Mappers would understandably not be willing to do it all, therefore any generic qualifications could be omited if the rest is unambiguous. Renderers would be able to easily render all vegetation green (not caring what details come after). Common values like trees or grass would likely (usually) be used without generic qualifiers (would not work on renderers rendering vegetation:doNotCare only). The main advantage is that any detail can be mapped without introducing too many keys of requiring too much detail to be provided.
2012/8/3 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > On 03/08/2012 13:36, Martin Vonwald wrote: >> >> 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. >> > Grass is an example of a herbaceous plant, and we tag from generic towards > specific, so it should really be landcover=herbaceous and herbaceous=grass. > I would advise against using "herbs" in this context. Although it may be > technically not incorrect amongst biologists, in common English usage it > refers to plants used for flavourings etc. like Thyme, Rosemary, and > Oregano. Joe Mapper is never going to forget that, although Jean-Luc > Cartographe might be excused for confusing grass and herbs (herbe is French > for grass, as well as the culinary plants) > > Colin > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
