On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: Presently landcover=clearing is fourth on the list of how to map, with > discouraging words attached. >
That list doesn't read that way to me. It appears to conflate two different things: a list of increasingly-better approximations to mapping an area with a clearing and a list of increasingly worse tag use. Here's my first attempt at clarifying it... Increasingly-better approximations: 1) Ignore the whole thing. 2) Map the enclosing area (e.g., a wood) and ignore any inner areas that are not a wood. 3) Map the enclosing area (e.g., a wood) and map inner areas that are not a wood. Increasingly better tagging for mapping inner areas that are not like the outer area (case 3 above): 1) Use landuse=clearing. Very strongly discouraged, although this is tagging that has been frequently used (quite possibly because the mapper did not know of a better way of doing it). It doesn't render and clearing isn't usage of land but what covers the land. 2) Use landcover=clearing. Strongly discouraged, although this is tagging that has occasionally been used. It doesn't render. It is a slight improvement on landuse=clearing because it describes, in a negative way, what covers the land. 3) Use a multipolygon relation. The outer area (e.g., a wood) takes the outer role. The clearings are mapped as areas with no other tagging (except notes, fixmes, etc.) and take the inner role. This is correct way to handle clearings and has the benefit that it renders. Note that it is fairly simple to convert existing landuse=clearing and landcover=clearing into multipolygon relationships however, as always, automated edits are strongly discouraged. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
