LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm@...> writes: > > What about this: > Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like > landcover=vegetation:herbaceous:grass, ...
> Mappers would understandably not be willing to do it all, therefore > any generic qualifications could be omited if the rest is unambiguous. ... > Sounds like a great way. There are of course several ways to construct hierarchy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) uses one such approach and when they come sufficently deep they switch to a more complicated system with tailored classifiers and attributes to go further. Right below the hierarchical system for vegetated land, FAO begin the classification by using the overall appearance of the vegetation to categorize landcover. They use something they call lifeforms where they identify "woody" plants as distinguished from "herbacious" plants. The "woody" plants are subdivided into "trees" and "shrubs" following the simple rule: If higher than 5 metres then it is a tree. They then identify if the land has a cover of trees/shrubs or if it is herbaceous. This is supposed to be a complete set of possibilities. -So on some level in the hierarchy we could (if we want) use theses three values as the only ones. That is why I am thinking on what names these three should have. For the moment the names of the three values are: trees/shrubs(?)/grass Defined as: "Trees" are woody plants over 5 m "Shrubs" are woody plants below 5 m "Grass" are not woody plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_plant _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
