Land cover differences compared to original ESA WorldCover data

Hi,

I've noticed that in the Overture land_cover dataset, many cities appear entirely classified as urban, even in areas that are clearly green parks when viewed in satellite imagery. For example, the area around the Eiffel Tower in Paris is labeled as fully urban in Overture, although it visibly contains large green spaces.

Here's a comparison:

• Google Maps satellite view:
  https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eiffelturm/@48.8570738,2.2960268,934m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x47e66e2964e34e2d:0x8ddca9ee380ef7e0!8m2!3d48.8583701!4d2.2944813!16zL20vMDJqODE?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

• ESA WordCover viewer:
  https://viewer.esa-worldcover.org/worldcover/?language=en&bbox=2.2637841803666143,48.84648711827367,2.336180938699192,48.86862866498325&overlay=false&bgLayer=OSM&date=2025-07-09&layer=WORLDCOVER_2021_MAP
  → The green areas (e.g. Champ de Mars) are correctly shown here as vegetation.

• Overture Maps viewer:
  https://explore.overturemaps.org/#15.47/48.85587/2.297878/0/1
  → The entire area is shown as urban, without visible differentiation of green zones.

When comparing the data layers, it seems that the original ESA WorldCover dataset is much more detailed and accurate in representing these mixed-use urban/green areas.

Is there a specific reason why this level of detail doesn’t appear in Overture’s version? Are there any plans to improve land_cover accuracy in future releases, perhaps by using or preserving the full resolution of ESA WorldCover?

This would be a significant help for projects like ours where visual realism and correct map styling are important.

Thanks!