<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">There are some who would then say that
a 'clearing' that is made by man should not be in the key
'natural' but in the key 'man_made'. <br>
<br>
A 'clearing' may not have ever had the surrounding vegetation - an
area of rock for example. <br>
<br>
The 'clearing' is about a change in the land cover, not about an
absence, an absence would be 'space' - a vacuum ...there will be
something there, but arm chair mappers may not be able to identify
either the surrounding vegetation nor the areas vegetation. <br>
<br>
On 09/08/18 02:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:50850AB9-8DD2-4960-B6A2-D039BF66C61B@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover
value that suits. Landcover is about what is there physically,
“clearing” is about the absence of what was there before.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Martin</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">sent from a phone</div>
<div><br>
On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <<a
href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Tagging mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a></span><br>
<span><a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>