On 21/01/19 05:52, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote:
All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a
forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in
recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, although,
clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are still mapped as such, as they
are considered to be part of the forest and are treated this may, but they are
morphologically not the forest: the forest is the area administratively
regarded as such, but it is not always the case; if I want, for instance, to
map them as a scrub area of the forest, as the polygons overlapped, they are
rendered in a mixed way. Is there a recommended way of handling such cases
without broking display? If so, what are they? The landcover tag?
boundary=forest_compartment? Another?
This again.
And it will continue to occur!
And reoccur, again and again.
There's a failed consensus here - and you risk reversion with either decision.
I tend to follow the principle that landuse=* denotes the land USE,
not the land COVER, so I don't demand that every square metre of
landuse=forest be covered by trees.
+1
But many do, and the renderer
follows their inclination.
natural=wood is a possibility to show tree cover - but that leads some
to argue that it has to be a 'natural' wood - whatever that means.
I've heard it argued that the 'old second growth' forest that's
increasingly common near me is still not 'natural' because a skilled
forester can still find the human impact. (Of course, that was true
even before the Europeans arrived - there was considerable
pre-Columbian human impact on these forests.)
Those who argue this have no problem abusing the landuse tag, so I see no
reason why the tag 'natural' cannot be similarly abused.
The OSMwiki for 'natural' even states that is can be used for human effected
things.
landcover=trees doesn't render, but is at least unambiguous that it
means tree cover and nothing else.
landuse=forestry, for a managed forest, has been proposed but received
a lukewarm reception.
For forestry area I tag landuse=forest with produce=trees (or what ever is
produced by the area for human use). This makes it clare that the area is for
productive human use.
For the state forests and wildlife management areas around here, I tag
at least boundary=protected_area. (Tag with the right protect_class,
and add leisure=nature_reserve if it fits: 'nature reserve' covers a
lot of things.) If I'm mapping land cover (I seldom do), I will use
natural=wood to mean 'tree cover' and let others fight over it.
I too use natural=wood with landcover=trees to map a tree area.
--------------------------
The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest
needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
The essential difference between the two is that landuse must have some human
benefit, a produce, and a clear way of doing that is to add the rendering of a
axe to the tree.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
