<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/01/19 16:47, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPiY71_YrtSFTxpMngdy9b0FFLS7hpxSYAQkY+_Uxj+iVQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
> “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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I would hope the OSM wiki would be better than that. It certainly
could be a better method for mappers looking for some correct tags.
<br>
<br>
I recently came across 'sport=paddleboard' (non english speaking
palce) and thought of table tennis .. contacted the mapper and no it
is ....in my local version of English, a 'rescue board' used by surf
life savers to rescue people.<br>
Yes they do have completions for it, but no permanent infrastructure
here so it does not get mapped. Only one instance in OSM so no wiki
page for it. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPiY71_YrtSFTxpMngdy9b0FFLS7hpxSYAQkY+_Uxj+iVQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Warin <<a
href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
______________________________</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>