[RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

I think the answer is that “natural” implies that the landcover is indeed natural… that the trees just grew there of their own accord. “landcover=trees” implies that someone planted them… that it’s managed, like a tree farm.

Yes, this is indeed also what I thought, landuse=cemetery has a high chance of having smaller landcover=graves inside of them.

While it is true that if you expand the definition of natural many items that are proposed from landcover can fit inside of natural.

However, for some items this limits the mapping potential, take for example a named heathland mapped as natural=heath. Many heathlands are not 100% covered by heat plants. There might be tracks running through them, or patches of sand.

With separation of landcover and natural entities you can split the exact cover of the heat plants (landcover=heath) from the rougher area of the natural entity (natural=heath).

This may sound uncommon however we do this already for other situations like squares. Many squares are manly pedestrian areas; however, they can also include greenery or fountains. To include these items onto the square the named place item place=square is separated from the pedestrian walk able area highway=pedestrian+area=yes.

Similar situations exist for:

  • Grasslands: natural=grassland + landcover=grass
  • Shrublands: natural=scrub + landcover=scrub
  • Woodlands: natural=wood + landcover=trees

this is not what I would expect from “landcover”. Graves are under the surface, you cannot see them, you can only see the plants growing on them, the tombstone, etc. (ok, we might consider all this together “the grave”, but in terms of landcover, I would rather describe these physically (plants) instead of functionally (grave).

I agree absolutely!

landuse=cemetery would have smaller polygons (patches) tagged with cemetery=grave (and/or historic=tomb), and those smaller polygons might additionally be tagged with landcover=* (or surface=*, for those who dislike landcover) with value of e.g.:

In other words, if one is about to use landcover=*, please use it only to describe the material that is actually covering that specific patch of land, eh? Not the function of it – doing that does not make any sense at all, and would destroy any credibility that landcover=* tag might have left.

Because what would be next in the line if landcover=graves would be OK? landcover=pitch? landcover=parking_space? landcover=restaurant? landcover=mailbox? landcover=motorway? :exploding_head: