Hello everybody, maybe you will allow me to join the discussion.
I tried for a long time to understand what I don’t like about this proposal and what exactly to criticize, because I have been thinking about introducing landuse=* tags for quite a long time myself.
The main drawback of this proposal is that unfortunately it is self-contradictory, and does not solve the declared problems. Also it neither makes the key=tag system clearer, nor makes life of OSM data user any easier.
The “proposal” section says that the goal is
to create a orthogonal tagging scheme that separates the tagging of functional and physical objects
Ok, it would be very nice if only it were possible. Unfortunately, this is not possible, because often the use determines the physical properties of an area, and vice versa, physical properties define possible land uses (that is the reason why natural, landuse (and surface) system sometimes seems chaotic)
So in “landcover implications” section we see:
Some current tags imply a landcover and therefore, landcover does not need to be added to these tags.
It’s indeed so, some tags imply landcover and OK, why bother to add additional tags to explicitly specify what is implied? However, it kills the idea of ‘‘orthogonality’’ completely.
For example, I would like to create a map of earth landcovers/vegetation. Can I do it now? Mostly yes. (There are a lot of white areas around the world, but Europe is mapped quite good).
How many keys do I need to process for that now? Mostly two keys are need: natural and landuse. OK, lets imagine that the proposal is approved, transitional period is over and every object is retagged. Will it be be possible to obtain landcover data from just single key? No! It will be necessary to process tags from three keys, natural, landuse, and, additionally, from the newly introduced landcover! So it’s complication, not simplification (and classical +1 standard situation) .
Maybe a landcover proposal must be much more radical to bring value to the users. In my opinion, the landcover system should cover 90% of land surface, ideally all the land. Not just objects that do not imply landcover from other tags. And it’s obviously not possible just with 7 new landcover values.
I do not (yet?) have a readymade solution either. Currently I can just share the list of landcovers which I use in my humble project. They are based on existing natural/landuse tags and their statistics. Maybe it could bring up some thoughts.