what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover value that suits. Landcover is about what is there physically, “clearing” is about the absence of what was there before.
Cheers, Martin sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try and stop > land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key landuse. > > > One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document. > > I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to a > 'clear' area. > > Most of these look to be from HOT mapping. > > > Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing and > wood=clearing. > > So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag > landcover=clearing > > A proposal page is ready for comments - link - > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing > > The basics are : > > Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as trees, > are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding area. It may > have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop of rock. > > Rationale: > Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of mapping > these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and suggest that this > tag is a last resort. > > Key > The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a > surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover. > The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area for > example. The area could have been made by man or nature so neither of the > keys natural or man_made would suit all situations. > > How to map > The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing; map > what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there and > surrounding or map with landcover=clearing. > Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers should be > encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found this tag page then > it is best to document better ways to tag the feature with this tag being the > lest desirable result that maps the information rather than not mapping the > information. > The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before > landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first - map what > is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot determine what is > there then the next option - map the surrounds. Then the combination of the > first two. Then finally the last option and least desirable. Hopefully this > causes some though on what they are mapping, rather than just using the tag. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
