On 5/6/20 10:46 am, Greg Troxel wrote:
Sure. I tend to think that if something is semantically sensible and can be represented, it's good to tag it, and then rendering is another story. I think pretty much everyone agrees that landuse=residential and natural=wood are both sensible to represent. And that how they ought to be rendered in a general purpose landuse/landcover style is much less settled.
Rendering is another area. My view: the render has to decide what is more 'important' - land cover or land use and then how to each group. I note how the land use military is mapped - strips so the land cover under it could be seen. If all land use were map similarity then that could work. Alternatively land cover could be represented as a symbol like tree areas symbol. Loose the background colours for all land covers and use symbols. Land uses would then be solid covers. Does not work for wwater so I think this would lead to more problems. I think I prefer the land use mapped as less 'important' - thus land cover gets solid colours... ----------------------- Whatever the renders decide we should map what is there, residential with or without trees, grass, flowers, scrub, whatever.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
