<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/4/21 8:34 am, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTAzRjKkj59xC=pgQaLOxBD4MXdZPo8R9zdYGhxnGQc21A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Typical in your area. In my area * State Forest are designated
areas that can and do include areas without trees (e.g. camp
grounds, huts, buildings, water bodies, etc). <br>
</p>
<p>These are all part of the area used to produce timber and as a
landuse the best fit is landuse=forest so far. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>To me landuse=forest is for the human use of the land .. it does
not say 'here be trees'. So the landuse does not change where
trees have been havested, it remains the same landuse. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>For tree areas there is nothing wrong with useing natural=wood. <br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>