On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't see any tags in favour of "for a", > I didn't either. But I didn't look very hard. > the common tag is landuse=forest not forestry, > You have introduced the perennial [groan] problem with landuse=forest. The wiki made clear it was intended to mean land used for forestry, instead most people interpreted it as meaning land with a forest on it, which is better tagged as landcover=trees or natural=wood. Going by the intended meaning, landuse=forest was meant to indicate land used for logging. > other tags include "greenfield", "brownfield", "landfill", village_green, > farmland, farmyard. > Yeah, I think the "is a" relationship wins by a large margin, and landuse=meadow fits those semantics. Now we can have a long (and not very productive) argument about whether landuse ought to mean "for a" relationships. This list constantly reminds me of the aphorism by Frederick P Brooks when writing about the design of operating systems and business applications: "[...] plan to throw one away; you will; anyhow." Your first attempt will be sub-optimal, but you'll learn how to do it right the next time. With the benefit of hindsight, we could come up with a far better (more consistent, more comprehensible) system of tagging based upon what we've learned. But we won't (can't) do that because it would essentially mean mapping EVERYTHING again (a major percentage of objects will not be directly translatable). So all we can do is try not to make it worse by adding even more tags that are inconsistent, incomprehensible, and have a natural interpretation that contradicts how they're meant to be used (forest/forestry). Then again, according to Ralph Waldo Emerson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
