> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> no:landcover=trees ? >> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees > > However you want to spell it. > > I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source > data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently > detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no > trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from > "we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here." > > "was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's > also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no > trees in the current imagery either", still without information about > whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or > farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages. I > suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see > no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial. >
Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It would indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but exactly what is not yet known. Once more information (field survey? low level aerial survey/photos?) is available then a more specific landcover could be applied.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
