<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/12/2015 8:35 AM, Ben Kelley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE4-2TK14Qifiwb5KqrBvMLNwXxLJ4CwGjxh7sf9Nmnf-0vCqA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hi.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I thought natural=wood was for trees that had not
been planted for the purpose of forestry.</p>
<p dir="ltr">landuse=forest is where they were planted for
forestry.</p>
</blockquote>
+1 <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE4-2TK14Qifiwb5KqrBvMLNwXxLJ4CwGjxh7sf9Nmnf-0vCqA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Use is not consistent.</p>
</blockquote>
Situation normal. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE4-2TK14Qifiwb5KqrBvMLNwXxLJ4CwGjxh7sf9Nmnf-0vCqA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> (If you harvest the natural trees, which one is it?)
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
forestry. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE4-2TK14Qifiwb5KqrBvMLNwXxLJ4CwGjxh7sf9Nmnf-0vCqA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">See the Forest page on the wiki, </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE4-2TK14Qifiwb5KqrBvMLNwXxLJ4CwGjxh7sf9Nmnf-0vCqA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">but landcover=trees seems incorrect.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why? <br>
<br>
I would take it that the area is covered in trees. <br>
What human purpose they are put to is not specified by the landcover
tag. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE4-2TK14Qifiwb5KqrBvMLNwXxLJ4CwGjxh7sf9Nmnf-0vCqA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> - Ben.<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 17, 2015 8:25 AM, "Warin" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi ...<br>
I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries
and came across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".<br>
Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area
includes National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State
Forests.<br>
Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.<br>
Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area
includes National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State
Forests.<br>
<br>
They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2
changesets- no response so far.<br>
<br>
They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery,
as such I think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees,
source=imagery" with no name nor other identifying tags. They
are all much much larger than their name would suggest.<br>
<br>
The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that
has tag 'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State
Forest that has pine trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them
'natural' ... it is hair splitting but I'd rather use
'landcover=trees'. :-)<br>
<br>
The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to
suppress its rendering or at least allow any other tagged
there to over write it. I am tempted to use the same tagging
method on all three ways.<br>
<br>
Comments please?<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>