Others would be useful, but aren't supported in coverage tools available to you. If your goal is to learn how to use coverage well, I'd much rather you got a tool and experimented with these four types than spend time now learning about additional types. The most important thing is that the tool's reports be easy for programmers to understand. This missed coverage here means you must be missing tests that do X . If you're shopping for a coverage tool that programmers are going to use, the first task may be to decipher the vendor's terminology.
Programmers seem to find line coverage tools easiest to understand.
Condition coverage tools are more powerful. I lean toward the latter, but I frankly think that issues like the tool's documentation, support, flexibility, reliability and so on are more important than the type of coverage it implements. Further reading Coverage tools are often misused.