On 24-Oct-16 07:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto: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
