Simon Wüllhorst wrote: >I was a bit confused about the inconsistent usage of landuse and natural tag. >Sometimes it’s not clear why there is used the natural or landuse key.
Landuse and natural tags have different keys, so that you can have both; they describe different properties. It's just that often or sometimes some landuse values virtually always imply some natural elements within that area, so we don't even bother tagging them. E.g. farmland is just landuse=farm, without natural=wheat or similar, or a landuse=quarry is without natural=bedrock or similar. >For forrest you have both (landuse=forrest and natural=wood) but it seems to >be the only one where you can decide whether it is managed or not. The forest vs. wood is a bad example anyway, since years back somebody made a mass edit and nobody noticed back then that you can have an area used for forestry (landuse=forest), that doesn't have trees (natural=wood) in it for several years; when the area has been clearcut / had a full chop recently. I.e. the combination of tags is not redundant, which was the only reason given for the changes back then. The original way was to use natural=wood with landuse=forest, or by itself; many still use them like that. So, for the field borders, one could pick any or several out of (at least) the following: * natural=scrub * natural=grassland * landuse=meadow (meadows exist that aren't for hay harvesting) * natural=meadow Even other tags may be suitable, depending on local ecological conditions. -- Alv _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
