<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/10/21 17:41, Andrew & Ingrid
Parker wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJcN88X_2gXy7MG3F6YSiop8KPsDGaP2XdwtRY-4fCA8a6NRFw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK
to have an area inside or overlapping another area. That is
logical and contrary to what I had been told by another mapper.
It may be the case that I misunderstood what they were saying.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Usually the last part - "misunderstood what they were saying" is
the largest part of the problem. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>My take;</p>
<p> landuse=forest does not denote trees but the human use of the
land to get timber. <br>
</p>
<p>natural=wood = trees exist here! Note 'natural' does not, in OSM
terms' exclude human intervention. So if it is planted,
maintained, etc by humans then it is still ok to tag
'natural=wood'. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>An example is where a tree area overlaps both a state forest and
farm land. The tree area can be drawn as one area. While the farm
and state forest can be separate areas overlapped by the tree
area. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>What you should not do is overlap areas of land covers such as
grass and trees, or sand and trees. And similarly for land use -
farm and industrial for example. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJcN88X_2gXy7MG3F6YSiop8KPsDGaP2XdwtRY-4fCA8a6NRFw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>Andrew Parker</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26,
Andrew Harvey <<a href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at
11:53, cleary <<a href="mailto:osm@97k.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">osm@97k.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Good mapping practice is to keep administrative
boundaries such as state parks, conservation areas,
suburbs etc separate from natural features such as
water, waterways, woods etc. While they sometimes
approximate, they rarely coincide exactly. <br>
<br>
Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually
inappropriate because there will, nearly always, be
parts of the park that are unwooded. Best to map the
park with its official boundary and then map the natural
features separately using other unofficial sources such
as survey and satellite imagery.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been
common to tag natural=wood on the administrative
boundary if it's 90% correct, but eventually as the
mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is
the way to go. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In some parts it has been applied where trees <70%... It was
done when national parks had no rendering .. tagging for the
render. Today I think the ktree tags should be removed from all
admin boundaries.. but that is just me. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>