sent from a phone
> On 23. Jan 2019, at 08:55, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the > outer way ? > I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named > area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that > correct ? we generally do not have a working concept for names of many kind of natural landscapes and features. These things typically have fuzzy borders and consist of different landcover and landuse. When I wrote the landcover proposal the idea was to separate named entities from both, landuse and from physical landcover, hence enabling more detailed mapping of landuse and landcover by not being constrained by the name question for the creation of objects . I had envisioned natural as key to define “natural features” with their names, because by then this was still a possible reading of the largest parts of the values (wood, beach, spring, cave, wetland , coastline, heath, grassland, cliff, peak,...) with few outliers but now we have so many things like “mud” , “sand”, “bare_rock”, “grass” that it became less probable it can be agreed on. Maybe we could use “place” for it? In the end, place is about cultural objects, you could see named entities as result of a cultural process (they exist somehow in parallel to the “micro” reality, inside a forest you can find things that aren’t forest areas, but a person would still say they are inside that forest, e.g. a lake or a clearing or small fields. The locality nodes already are used like this. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
