christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote on 2015-08-03 09:20:
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the cultural landscape (landuse).
> But the proposal never got the support it needed to get established.
17000 x landcover in the database, by 748 different users, of which 9300 are trees, is definitely support. Probably the key should be refined and documented more precisely. Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-08-03 10:00: > it is an orthogonal tagging scheme to map physical landcover as opposed to landuse > and abstract geographic entities like natural ... Which makes a lot of sense. I often have cases that a commercial or residential plot of land (which boundaries are now mappable from open land registry data) which is covered in parts by certain vegetation or surface (which is visible in aerial photography). Being able to combine these different sources will bring out the strengths of OSM. The tag also helps to solve the issue that nature claims back land that is not used by humans anymore, with arbitrary vegetation, and no land_use_ tag fits. tom _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
