<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Hi<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, 14:24 Andy Townsend, <<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 01/09/2021 20:34, Tom Crocker wrote:<br>
><br>
> Andy, thanks for the suggestion of landuse=forestry for the bigger <br>
> area. I'm convinced but I imagine until carto, osmand, etc can at <br>
> least render the name Russ isn't going to want to use this, and using <br>
> landuse=forest will blot out all of the gaps and cause confusion I guess.<br>
<br>
I did add support for landuse=forestry to the map style that I look <br>
after, <snip> landuse=forest is treated the same way, and names on either of those (or</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
natural=wood) are rendered. </blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And I like it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">OSM Carto won't ever support it</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Fair enough. You'll have a much better idea of this than me. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> You <br>
can point OsmAnd at any tiles you want, so at least when online that's <br>
not an issue.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, and I'm grateful to be able to point at your tiles as I do. But many won't and I suspect the better we cater for people who haven't heard of openstreetmap the more we'll build our pool of editors.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> Perhaps a halfway house would be landuse=forest and introduce cutlines <br>
> between the gaps... Render the name and the cutlines and be ready to <br>
> switch to landuse=forestry if/when the time comes, but it's more work <br>
> and objects.<br>
<br>
While mapping cutlines where they exist is a perfectly good idea, lots <br>
of stands of trees (at least in Yorkshire) are separated by more than a <br>
simple cutline. Mapping "where there are currently trees" and "where <br>
there is a managed forest" separately makes sense to me (and to my eyes <br>
is much less like "micromapping" than mapping detail like house numbers <br>
etc.!).<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear and think we're broadly agreeing (although it's fine if I've misunderstood and people still think it's a bad idea!). I was suggesting mapping where there are currently trees, where there's managed forest, but also where there's cutlines. So, specifically in Kielder, I would change the existing landuse=forest areas to natural=wood. Add named areas of forest with landuse=forest but also add cutlines between the natural=wood areas when there's a narrow, relatively consistent gap - there's quite a lot of these in Kielder. Add areas of grass, heath, wetland, etc elsewhere (James, <span style="font-family:sans-serif">I don't know if you're aware of </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif">JOSM's balloon tool which makes th</span>is pretty easy?).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><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>James Derrick wrote:<br></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
Sketching an arboreal equivalent...<br>
natural=tree (specimens only - unless _really_ keen!)<br>
landuse=forest (possibly include natural=wood?)<br>
(manmade=cutline if unmapped and linear?)<br>
landuse=forestry <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Personally I would use natural=wood regardless of it being kind-of man-made as it's explicitly about trees (just like it's only natural=tree,cliff...). Then, while I'd like to use landuse=forestry as an explicit "managed area that may or may not have trees", I was thinking use landuse=forest for now so it works for most current consumers.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div>Best regards</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>Tom<br></div>
</div>