For many years now I've been pretty happy to use landuse=forest pretty much everywhere I found a group of trees. Yes, in some cases the semantics irked me a bit, but landuse=forest always rendered fine. I used what worked for me.
On many occasions however I've seen newbies remove or retag landuse=forest areas as the very first thing they do after registering. "It's not a forest" (whatever that means) they argue, even if the area in question is completely covered with trees and sometimes even has "forest" as part of the name. On some occasions it's been a real hassle trying to explain that landuse=forest basically just means that the area is covered by trees, no more, no less, and that we use it because this is what renders, not because the semantics are perfect. So what I'm trying to illustrate is that while I'm happy to use landuse=forest myself, I do see a practical problem with it; Newbies taking it a bit too literally. If landcover=trees would render, I imagine it would make my job a lot easier. torsdag den 7. juni 2018 18.41.26 CEST skrev Mateusz Konieczny: > I responded to "what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?" > I see nothing wrong with using landcover=trees. > But in context of this discussion I understood "bad choices" as > landuse=forest. BTW, I am happy to fix some broken tagging - for example I > am regularly hunting downdemolished=yes (for example on buildings), > made/make multiple mechanical editscleaning up tags (yes, it is approved by > local community and follows mechanical edit policy). > > But deprecating landuse=forest of redefining lanes tag is not going to > happen. > 7. Jun 2018 16:11 by pelder...@gmail.com <mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>: > > Rendering landcover=trees is not the same as deprecating landuse=forest. > > It just offers the option to tag tree-covered areas on a different landuse > > such as industrial, military, residential or commercial. I do expect a > > shift from landuse=forest to landcover=trees, as soon as it would be > > rendered. Not because of retagging of all forests, but because of tagging > > the smaller treecovered patches mainly in residential areas, which are > > now either mistagged as forests, orchards, parks and gardens, or are not > > tagged at all because it isn't landuse as it is defined in the wiki.> > > 2018-06-07 15:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> >: > >> 7. Jun 2018 11:53 by >> selfishseaho...@gmail.com <mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>> : > >>> On 7 June 2018 at 10:46, Christoph Hormann <>>> o...@imagico.de <mailto:o...@imagico.de>>>> > wrote: > >>>> There are tons of established tags in OSM where the key makes no sense > >>>> at all. Don't get me started on 'waterway' for example. But that is > >>>> how OSM works. Get over it, accept that people have made bad choices > >>>> of keys when choosing tags and concentrate on encouraging and helping > >>>> people to choose suitable keys when newly creating tags (in a > >>>> productive way of course, not just by rejecting any idea as bad). > >>> > >>> And what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices? > >> > >> Cost, effort and confusion is not worth positive effects. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Revolutions are really rarely worth costs. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Making tagging more consistent is not one of this cases. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Improvements are possible but not when it starts from "deprecate > >> landuse=forest because it is not used to tag land use". > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
