In his last Post (Sp.,16) Jorgeg proposes that "we continue our exchange of views on landscape types according to C. Norberg-Schulz.".   I am all for it; but before we proceed I think that some, in my view, important points, should be clarified.

   In former Posts I wrote about the importance of classification in Landscape Studies…If I may add another quote… Leibniz (in New Essays in Human Understanding , 1704) wrote:

    " And those who have laid out all sorts of notions under certain headings or categories have done something very useful. "

      I very much agree, but:- in which way that procedure is useful for the special case of landscape appreciation? I'd like to pose two questions in this context:

   a)  Is categorization useful for the appreciation of landscapes?

 If a) were to be answered positively, then:

    b) Which of the various ways of categorization that have been proposed is the most useful for landscape appreciation?