<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="margin-left:40px">Am Mi., 14. Apr. 2021 um 18:20 Uhr schrieb Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <<a href="mailto:bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com">bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com</a>>:<font face="Verdana">Very true, happy you mention and confirm it. However, that is
not how it is used by many mappers. We see whole villages and
cities mapped as landuse=residential, not a big deal since you
can easily define inner areas with different landuse, perfectly
viable and correct although complex due to growing number of
inner areas when we go into more detail. <br></font></div></blockquote><div><font face="Verdana"><br></font></div><div><font face="Verdana"><br></font></div><div><font face="Verdana">while I personally don't do it and believe it is not a helpful approach in general if you want progress in landuse mapping, it can be seen as rough and approximate way of landuse mapping that can be later refined. Adding more complexity by adding inners is one possibility, but I have seen that it leads to problems because as people add more detail it becomes ever more complex, and ultimately you end up with the constructs either broken, or at least many less experienced mappers are shying away because of the complexity.<br></font></div><div><font face="Verdana"><br></font></div><div><font face="Verdana">My suggestion is to do it the other way round: start puzzling many small, self contained landuse pieces together, leave the roads out (stop a property lines), and you will receive an easy to maintain, improve and refine, stable (geometry-error wise) structure with low complexity. If drawing the single blocks seems too much work, at least start by leaving arterial roads, railroads and waterways out.<br></font></div><div><font face="Verdana"><br></font></div><div><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p style="margin-left:40px"><font face="Verdana">It becomes different however when the
landuse tag is used on a macro scale to map areas which refer to
the "management" of the area, not the actual landuse. This is
the case for f.i. refugee camps (very large in many cases with a
variety of landuses inside them), mapped and tagged as
landuse=residential,</font></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>while they could be seen as residential landuse, there should be a feature tag for a refugee camp (I think there is already). Just landuse=residential clearly isn't sufficient.<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p style="margin-left:40px"><font face="Verdana"> and for our case here landuse=forest. Creating inner areas with different landuse explicitly excludes
them from the management philosophy. The only viable solution
for that seems to me a boundary.<br>
Correct me if I am wrong, but also in countries where the
landuse=forest is heavily used, is it mapped on areas that are
no longer covered with trees, the trees are cut or as in the
proposal areas with ponds, some agriculural use, some small
villages ? </font></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>typically landuse=forest is added to (any) area of trees, but not when they are cut or when there are different features like ponds, lakes, meadows. These are not included.<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p style="margin-left:40px"><font face="Verdana">All of those are managed by the forestry department,
is it not to harvest and economically use the forest, then to
protect (which is a management strategy) the natural remaining
tree stands, open areas, water features, wildlife grazing or
feeding grass covered or scrub land etc... as they are all part
of the forest ecosystem and necessary to sustain the forest,
make it economically viable on the long term.<br>
</font></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>landuse=forest has no such implications about forest ecosystems. If you want to find true forests, you will have to analyze the size and shape of the landuse=forest polygons together with their neighbours, to estimate wether it is a forest or just some trees.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div>Martin<br></div></div></div></div>