This idea of a wood or forest as a whole region, rather than the area that actually contains trees, may be culturally limited.
I grew up in a town that was surrounded by national forest on all side, but the valley floor had some pasture and residential areas (300 people). Did we live in the forest? Not sure. The official National Forest boundary and signs were miles away, surrounding our hamlet, but the land was all privately owned, unlike the actual forest land So it sounds like some people, especially in Europe, want to be able to tag a whole region with the name of the forest. Would this mean that the whole, very large “Black Forest” region in Germany would get tagged as landuse=forestry or whatever, even though it includes towns and farms and many other types of landuse? I don’t see how that would be helpful. If you want region names, there was a proposal before. These have been used to name mountain regions (eg sections of the Alps) for example. But here as well as in the “Black Forest” example, the borders will be very hard to define. Who’s to say where the Alps end and the foothills or valley begins? On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 23. Jan 2019, at 08:55, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the > > outer way ? > > I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named > > area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that > > correct ? > > > we generally do not have a working concept for names of many kind of > natural landscapes and features. These things typically have fuzzy borders > and consist of different landcover and landuse. When I wrote the landcover > proposal the idea was to separate named entities from both, landuse and > from physical landcover, hence enabling more detailed mapping of landuse > and landcover by not being constrained by the name question for the > creation of objects . > > I had envisioned natural as key to define “natural features” with their > names, because by then this was still a possible reading of the largest > parts of the values (wood, beach, spring, cave, wetland , coastline, heath, > grassland, cliff, peak,...) with few outliers but now we have so many > things like “mud” , “sand”, “bare_rock”, “grass” that it became less > probable it can be agreed on. > Maybe we could use “place” for it? In the end, place is about cultural > objects, you could see named entities as result of a cultural process (they > exist somehow in parallel to the “micro” reality, inside a forest you can > find things that aren’t forest areas, but a person would still say they are > inside that forest, e.g. a lake or a clearing or small fields. The locality > nodes already are used like this. > > > Cheers, Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
