> “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,”<br><br>I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the British variety).<br><br>Many speakers of other languages just search for an English word in an online traslation service and then stick that into the editor to find a tag.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="m_3564837887790699682moz-cite-prefix">On 21/01/19 10:17, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.<br>
<br>
Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto)
did show a difference between landuse=forest and natural=wood.
However, mappers used these two tags interchangeably even then.
The rendering was changed to match actually database usage on a
global scale, which is that both tags are often used to tag any
area covered with trees.<br>
<br>
The current rendering follows tag usage and the current wiki page,
which also discusses this issue in depth.<br>
<br>
I wish it were possible to fix this, but the different meanings of
“forest” and “wood” in various English dialects make it difficult,</blockquote>
<br>
The meaning of the key 'landuse' is fairly clear in any English
dialect. <br>
<br>
The problem of the key 'natural' remains. <br>
<br>
Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and
compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a
difference, <br>
The former is for what the land is used for. <br>
The latter is for the presence of plants, if you take any plant as
being natural then natural=wood is 'acceptable' for ant tree area.'
<br></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
even before we add other languages and cultures to the mix.<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:04 AM Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 21/01/19
05:52, Kevin Kenny wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal <<a href="mailto:penegal@live.fr" target="_blank">penegal@live.fr</a>> wrote:<br>
>> 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?<br>
> This again.<br>
<br>
And it will continue to occur!<br>
<br>
And reoccur, again and again.<br>
<br>
><br>
> There's a failed consensus here - and you risk reversion
with either decision.<br>
><br>
> I tend to follow the principle that landuse=* denotes the
land USE,<br>
> not the land COVER, so I don't demand that every square
metre of<br>
> landuse=forest be covered by trees.<br>
<br>
+1<br>
<br>
> But many do, and the renderer<br>
> follows their inclination.<br>
><br>
> natural=wood is a possibility to show tree cover - but
that leads some<br>
> to argue that it has to be a 'natural' wood - whatever
that means.<br>
> I've heard it argued that the 'old second growth' forest
that's<br>
> increasingly common near me is still not 'natural'
because a skilled<br>
> forester can still find the human impact. (Of course,
that was true<br>
> even before the Europeans arrived - there was
considerable<br>
> pre-Columbian human impact on these forests.)<br>
<br>
Those who argue this have no problem abusing the landuse tag,
so I see no reason why the tag 'natural' cannot be similarly
abused.<br>
The OSMwiki for 'natural' even states that is can be used for
human effected things.<br>
<br>
><br>
> landcover=trees doesn't render, but is at least
unambiguous that it<br>
> means tree cover and nothing else.<br>
><br>
> landuse=forestry, for a managed forest, has been proposed
but received<br>
> a lukewarm reception.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
><br>
> For the state forests and wildlife management areas
around here, I tag<br>
> at least boundary=protected_area. (Tag with the right
protect_class,<br>
> and add leisure=nature_reserve if it fits: 'nature
reserve' covers a<br>
> lot of things.) If I'm mapping land cover (I seldom do),
I will use<br>
> natural=wood to mean 'tree cover' and let others fight
over it.<br>
<br>
I too use natural=wood with landcover=trees to map a tree
area.<br>
<br>
--------------------------<br>
The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from
natural=wood.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_3564837887790699682mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="m_3564837887790699682moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="m_3564837887790699682moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>