On 10-Apr-17 06:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 10. Apr 2017, at 07:17, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote:
Any suggestions on how we should be mapping forested areas would be appreciated.
my suggestion is to map the following 3 aspects (not necessarily in the same
osm feature, but orthogonally, also overlapping if required):
natural=*. the named feature/forest, also nested smaller ones inside bigger
ones. This is for toponyms and geographic features, e.g. a pond in the forest
would be included
I would argue that a pond is a land cover. :)
I don't 'like' the key natural -
as it stands for things that I regard as 'unnatural' and covers things in one
key that can be classified as
'land cover' e.g. woods
or
'land forms' e.g. cliffs
landuse =forest. areas used to grow and log trees (actual current human use of
land), a pond would not be included but a clearcut area still dedicated to
growing trees would.
landcover=trees
all kind of areas where trees grow (physical aspect)
cheers,
Martin
It is unfortunate that water (covering 2/3rds of the earth's surface) has a few
different methods of tagging in OSM ... waterway and natural.
I think waterway comes from a transport thinking similar to highway.
And 'natural' comes from the need to tag water that has no transportation
application.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
