<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Feb 10, 2021, 09:45 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Now, let's say the proposal<br></div><div>* deprecates landuse=forest,<br></div><div>* states that natural=wood says "this area, managed or wild, is totally covered by trees",<br></div></blockquote><div>Seems fine to me. Note that it requires no action at all from data consumers,<br></div><div>they can keep rendering natural=wood and landuse=forest.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>* states that boundary=forestry says "this area is managed through forestry".<br></div></blockquote><div>It would be worth explicit documenting that forestry includes not only logging.<br></div><div>Active forestry may be happening in area without logging, without plans for<br></div><div>commercial exploitation of forest (or use of forest for purposes other than<br></div><div>production of timber and related materials).<br></div><div><br></div><div>What about privately owned forests?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Long time ago someone imported areas officially considered as forest parcels in Poland,<br></div><div>result was often a bizarre mess (barcode pattern of narrow strips of land was very popular<br></div><div>- 100m long, 5m wide plot owned by National Forestry, 5m wide plot owned by<br></div><div>private owner, 5m wide plot owned by National Forestry, repeated 50 times).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Especially if in some areas boundary=forestry would be worth rendering,<br></div><div>how it should be handled that in some areas it would merely record land ownership<br></div><div>and nothing else? And rendering it would be useless and harmful there?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Also, how it is supposed to be mapped/verified?<br></div><div>If one sees 45 years old trees - how one can recognise is it maintained<br></div><div>commercial forest, nowadays protected area, abandoned private forest without<br></div><div>forestry, private forest without forestry because it is not needed right now<br></div><div>or something else?<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Would it be OK to map this also when this boundaries has no traces at all on the ground<br></div><div>and importing them is the sole source of obtaining this data, with independent<br></div><div>verification being impossible?<br></div><div><div><br></div></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Let's take the above schema, with ║ symbolising the boundary=forestry relation, and ─ symbolising natural=wood, the only remaining tag for wooded areas:<br></div></blockquote><div>What about landcover=trees? Would it be also deprecated?<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>I'll try to explain through ASCII art (to be quick; should what I explain be merged in the proposal, I would take time to draw nice schemas). Let's say there is a pond (│ symbol) in the forestry area, modelled with landuse=forest (─ symbol), and the pond is considered part and parcel of the forestry area. Currently, the landuse=forest and water=pond polygons would overlap:<br></div><div>─────────────────────<br></div><div>─────────────────────<br></div><div>───────┼┼┼┼┼┼────────<br></div><div>─────┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼───────<br></div><div>───────┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼─────<br></div><div>───────┼┼┼┼┼┼┼┼──────<br></div><div>─────────────────────<br></div><div>This mapping allows to model the fact that the pond is considered part and parcel of the forestry area.<br></div></blockquote><div>This is an incorrect tagging caused by using landuse=forest to map forestry area<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Unfortunately, this often leads to a somewhat buggy rendering, with trees symbols rendered in the water.<br></div></blockquote><div>This is deliberate to show that tagging is buggy.<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>See<br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1242" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1242</a><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1728" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1728</a><br></div><div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>That may be perfectly OK for wooded residential areas<br></div></blockquote><div>Yes, it is also deliberately done this way to try supporting tree-covered<br></div><div>areas of various kind.<br></div></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>The proposal could be about "landuse=forest is managed, natural=wood is unmanaged. Period.", but, as I understand the situation, such proposal would likely stall or being uneffective, because most mappers who use another approach of the landuse=forest/natural=wood distinction would likely keep their approach, voiding the proposal, even approved. That wouldn't resolve the pointed rendering issues either.<br></div></blockquote><div><div>Alsowhat about<br></div><div>- people mapping forest from aerial images<br></div><div>- not interested in this distinction<br></div><div>- unable to survey situation<br></div><div>- ones overwhelmed by complexity<br></div><div><div>?<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>(also note that it is extremely hard to fing forest that is not managed - typical protected forest<br></div><div>is also managed in some way)<br></div></div></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>There must be a way to mark "I mark that there are trees here" without making<br></div><div>mandatory to specify anything else.<br></div></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>