Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> writes: > 2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden <[email protected]>: >> May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset >> have defined? >> >> http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file >> they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and >> looks usable to me. > > of course it is studied. And it surely is usable in some way, but as > far as I have seen (it's 163 pages) it doesn't deal at all with > national parks and other protective areas (that's also logical, as > this is not landcover but legal stuff).
I think the basic problem is that we have a bunch of tags for non-orthogonal cases and a real mess of when things are used. Physical description (landcover) is one thing, and legal status/use is another. The USGS topo maps used to have white for open and green for wooded, plus swamp, etc. and these were landcover. So, I think we need some tags that denote landcover, and some tags that denote legal status. so an area would have at most 1, preferably exactly one of: landcover=trees landcover=swamp .... and at most 1 of land_use=... yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees, but in the case of land_use=conservation I would expect a variety of landcover tags within the administrative boundary of the conservation area/park.
pgp8kFeXnHOVF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
