On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]>: >> >> Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I >> would support such proposal. > > > how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects?
Usually on the landuse (or leisure or natural or...) area. > If you do the latter you will often have to make compromises, because of > things > that are part of the named forest but are different landuses, e.g. a lake, > or buildings, campings, meadows, settlements, cemeteries etc. That compromise is made all over OSM : we ignore the small areas inside a landuse such as lakes, buildings, or corner shops in a landuse=residential. Where to draw the line between too much detail and too little is a very subjective decision. > You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas. When would you need that ? > I believe it's > impractical to have it all in one tag: forest objects, the information where > trees grow and where the landuse is forest. Multipoligon relations also > impose a limit then how detailed you can get without loosing editability or > even hitting api limits. The only detailed MP you really need is for landcover=trees, but there's no reason to give this a name and therefore no reason to have a single huge MP. You can split it arbitrarily to make it managable. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
