<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<tt>Hi,</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>I have been looking at the values used with the landuse </tt><tt>key
to try and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimat</tt><tt>e
use of the key landuse. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki
do</tt><tt>cument. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>I resolved this to mean a change in land cover </tt><tt>usually
from trees to a 'cl</tt><tt>ear' area. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Most of these look to be from HOT mapping. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Other instances of the value 'clearing' are </tt><tt>natural=clearing
and</tt><tt><tt> wood=clearing</tt>.<br>
<br>
So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag
landcover=clearing<br>
<br>
A proposal page is ready for comments - link -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing</a><br>
<br>
The basics are : <br>
<br>
</tt><tt><span class="mw-headline" id="Definition">Definition</span></tt><tt>:
</tt><tt>An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as trees,
are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding
area. It may have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an
outcrop of rock. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt><tt><span class="mw-headline" id="Rationale">Rationale</span></tt><tt>:<br>
</tt><tt>Defines use of already existing value and suggest better
ways of mapping these features. It is meant to encourage better
mapping and suggest that this tag is a last resort.
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><span class="mw-headline" id="Key">Key</span></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the
lack of a surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a
land cover. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>The area could all ready have a land use - part of a
forestry area for example. The area could have been made by man or
nature so neither of the keys natural or man_made would suit all
situations.
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><span class="mw-headline" id="How_to_map">How to map</span></tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a
clearing; map what is there, map what is surrounding, map both
what is there and surrounding or map with landcover=clearing. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea,
mappers should be encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper
has found this tag page then it is best to document better ways to
tag the feature with this tag being the lest desirable result that
maps the information rather than not mapping the information. </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones
come before landcover=clearing to discourage it use.
The simplest option first - map what is there - as that is the
easiest option. If they cannot determine what is there then the
next option - map the surrounds. Then the combination of the first
two. Then finally the last option and least desirable. Hopefully
this causes some though on what they are mapping, rather than just
using the tag.
</tt><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>