2016-06-20 17:30 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk>: > The simple fact is that there is not a consistent structure for > identifying 'landcover' on OSM and even natural=wood and landuse=forest > make it difficult to decide what is naturally occurring and what is man > made. > landuse=reservoir is a lot more practical where at times of the > year the majority of the surface area is exposed. That is a totally man > made situation for which 'natural' does not apply. >
generally, reading "natural=*" as "made by mother nature" is a bogus interpretation in my view. It is just a kind of feature-group (geographical / landscape feature) for things. > And when moving onto > areas like marinas which take several forms including basins on the > waterway system, including land elements as 'retail' or 'residential' > and water elements as waterway tags as part of the Relation:waterway. > But the overall area's landuse is marina even if we currently tag it as > leisure=marina without any agreement as to just what area that should > cover. > the tag should cover the whole marina, is this difficult to apply? > > It's the insistence that water only applies to natural elements which > just does not fit properly, and man_made=reservoir while much more > accurate does not fit in with a consistent landcover/landuse overlay? > man_made=reservoir would be an option for reservoirs (nothing I would introduce, just another tag for what already has 2 alternative mapping methods). What do you mean by "consistent landcover/landuse overlay"? Those are orthogonal concepts, with often different boundaries, displaying both (all of it) at the same time will most likely lead to un unreadable map. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
