Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
> mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" ..
> I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.
>
> Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is tagged.
>
> If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest with a 
> secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
> If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.
>
>

who is declaring the "primary use"? How would you judge this?
landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where trees
grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the landcover=trees
property which I myself try to push and besides the natural=wood tag which
is disputed in meaning because of the unclear term "natural"), i.e. if you
decided that a forest was meant "primarily for hunting", you couldn't map
it as a forest...

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 24-Oct-16 07:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" ..
I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.

Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is tagged.

If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest with a 
secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.



who is declaring the "primary use"?

The mapper - as usual.

How would you judge this?

Same as I would judge anything else - from the available evidence.
landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where 
trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the 
landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides the 
natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the unclear 
term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was meant 
"primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...


I would use the following combination;

landuse=hunting
landcover=trees
natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to dual 
tag with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely 
accepted', just not by some)


If the area were primarily used for the production of tees and/or their 
products with hunting as another use I would use the following combination;


landuse=forest
hunting=yes (or permissive etc)

---
To me landuse=forest is only for areas where trees are grown for the 
production of products from those trees e.g. lumber, wood pulp, oils, 
rubber, maple syrup



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 24 ott 2016, alle ore 13:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha 
> scritto:

> I would use the following combination;
> 
> landuse=hunting
> landcover=trees
> natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to dual tag 
> with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely accepted', just 
> not by some)



if the forest and the hunting area are known under different names, under which 
tag would you put which name? 

cheers,
Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Chris Hill]

On 24/10/16 09:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" ..
I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.

Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is tagged.

If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest with a 
secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.



who is declaring the "primary use"? How would you judge this? 
landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where 
trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the 
landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides the 
natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the unclear 
term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was meant 
"primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...


The whole mix of forest and hunting discussion is amusing. The English 
word forest meant an uncultivated area set aside for hunting, usually 
with some trees on it. The hunting would often be on horseback. The word 
forest has become used as an area full of trees.


Hunting in the UK still often conjures up an image of people on 
horseback with a pack of hounds chasing foxes across the (cultivated) 
countryside rather than in a forest, which is now banned. Hunts (the 
name for the collection of people, horses and dogs) that used to chase 
foxes now chase artificial scents and only kill a fox when no one is 
watching. Legal hunting for sport in the UK is largely restricted to a 
few people who pay to stalk and shoot deer (known as stalking, never as 
hunting), a few people who pay to have game birds driven towards them so 
they can shoot them (know as shooting, never as hunting) and people who 
shoot rabbits and pigeons for the pot with a shotgun.


This is completely different from the idea of hunting elsewhere in the 
world. Such diversity means tagging needs to be carefully applied. If 
someone tagged the area that a hunt ranges (the horses and dogs type) in 
England as hunting=yes and someone else used that to indicate they could 
take down local deer with a rifle or a crossbow that would not be good.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Yves]

Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what about 
defining hunting = as a permission tag,  and invent a new polygon type 
dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other polygon is suitable 
to add this tag to? 
Yves 


Le 24 octobre 2016 13:29:21 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>On 24-Oct-16 07:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> 2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> >:
>>
>> And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
>> mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then
>landuse=hunting" ..
>> I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is
>hunting.
>>
>> Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use
>is tagged.
>>
>> If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged
>landuse=forest with a secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put
>forward.
>> If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be
>used.
>>
>>
>>
>> who is declaring the "primary use"?
>The mapper - as usual.
>> How would you judge this?
>Same as I would judge anything else - from the available evidence.
>> landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where 
>> trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the 
>> landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides the 
>> natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the unclear 
>> term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was meant 
>> "primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...
>
>I would use the following combination;
>
>landuse=hunting
>landcover=trees
>natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to
>dual 
>tag with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely 
>accepted', just not by some)
>
>If the area were primarily used for the production of tees and/or their
>
>products with hunting as another use I would use the following
>combination;
>
>landuse=forest
>hunting=yes (or permissive etc)
>
>---
>To me landuse=forest is only for areas where trees are grown for the 
>production of products from those trees e.g. lumber, wood pulp, oils, 
>rubber, maple syrup
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 25-Oct-16 12:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Il giorno 24 ott 2016, alle ore 13:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I would use the following combination;

landuse=hunting
landcover=trees
natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to dual tag 
with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely accepted', just 
not by some)



if the forest and the hunting area are known under different names, under which 
tag would you put which name?


Use the same method as for bridges ..

the 'primary' feature name

name=*

the 'other' feature

hunting:name=*

forest:name=*

These details are trivial.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 25-Oct-16 03:57 AM, Yves wrote:
Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what 
about defining hunting = as a permission tag, and invent a new polygon 
type dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other 
polygon is suitable to add this tag to?

Yves


Nice idea. Thank you Yves for thinking of the basics.



Le 24 octobre 2016 13:29:21 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a 
écrit :


On 24-Oct-16 07:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>:

And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then 
landuse=hunting" ..
I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.

Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is 
tagged.

If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest 
with a secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.



who is declaring the "primary use"?

The mapper - as usual.

How would you judge this?

Same as I would judge anything else - from the available evidence.

landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area
where trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the
landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides
the natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the
unclear term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was
meant "primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...


I would use the following combination;

landuse=hunting
landcover=trees
natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend
to dual tag with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is
'widely accepted', just not by some)

If the area were primarily used for the production of tees and/or
their products with hunting as another use I would use the
following combination;

landuse=forest
hunting=yes (or permissive etc)

---
To me landuse=forest is only for areas where trees are grown for
the production of products from those trees e.g. lumber, wood
pulp, oils, rubber, maple syrup




Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma 
brièveté. 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Yves  wrote:

> Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what about
> defining hunting = as a permission tag, and invent a new polygon type
> dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other polygon is
> suitable to add this tag to?
>

I think that's a fine idea, and I think (rereading
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area) that
'boundary=protected_area protect_class=14 protection_object=hunting' would
be eminently appropriate if there's no other polygon type available. I see
that 'protect_class=14' is documented to mean '*species:* no fishing,
protected for fishery, *protected for hunting*, plants, ... ' (italics
mine), which sounds just like what's intended.

I used 'hunting=*' with the New York City conservation lands import, along
with 'trapping=*' and 'fishing=*'.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304831 is an example of the full set
of tags.

I didn't come up with a formal proposal, because then I'd have to think
harder about what the default values ought to be; Sorry, I'm lazy! I
mentioned the tags in the import proposal, and nobody complained.

The issue of defaults is a tough one.For instance, all State Forests in New
York allow hunting, with the exception that the ones in Regions 1-3 require
specific authorization to hunt there. All allow fishing wherever there's a
suitable waterbody. When I did the New York State lands, I didn't trouble
with those tags. Perhaps I should have, since it's not immediately obvious
what particular locale-dependent assumptions ought to be made. Food for
thought.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging