<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div></div><div>Hi James</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 17:30, James Derrick <<a href="mailto:lists@jamesderrick.org" target="_blank">lists@jamesderrick.org</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>
<div>Hi Tom,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 02/09/2021 22:19, Tom Crocker wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
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. </blockquote>
After older debates, the tagging practice has been Approach 3 as in
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest</a><br>
<p>This distinguishes natural=wood from landuse=forest in a similar
way to wild animals and cattle (analogy mugged from IT sysadmin
VMs).</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fair enough. I'm sure a lot of thought has gone into the current practice in Kielder. I suggested that way because: <br></div><div>- I understand most data consumers treat wood and forest as identical given the confusion, <br></div><div>- I believe it's usually preferred to not overlay one landuse on another, and <br></div><div>- landuse=forestry isn't recognised by many, so following this approach Wark Forest etc would be unlikely to found in a search.</div><div>but however it's done will be misunderstood by most given the current state of play.</div><div><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><blockquote type="cite">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?).</blockquote>
<p>That process was started, but there's a lot of Kielder...</p>
<p>A JOSM balloon tool is news to me, but after some poking around,
do you mean the plug-in ShrinkWrap perhaps?</p>
<p> <a href="https://github.com/ubipo/shrinkwrap" target="_blank">https://github.com/ubipo/shrinkwrap</a> <br>
</p>
<p>Ooh! Shiny! Thanks! :-)<br>
</p>
<p>Much of Kielder isn't bounded so might need some tweaks, but
Shinkwrap looks exceptionally useful for general landcover - add
boundary barrier=*, then click to generate an internal landuse=*
without having to manually trace the area with Follow.</p>
<p>Signing off now to try a new toy...</p></div></blockquote><div>I hope you're enjoying it. I probably made it sound easier than it is - given the size of Kielder it's still obviously going to take an awful long time! What I do when there's a change of landcover without associated boundary
(others undoubtedly have greater experience), is add a small area of that to block up the end, then use the Balloon tool from the shrinkwrap plugin to fill the rest and then merge the two areas.</div><div><br></div><div>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br></div><div>Edward Bainton wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
I could see the fine distinction between landuse=forestry and
landuse=forest getting lost on many of those novices, besides the
2-character difference.<div><br></div><div>Might landuse=managed_forestry, or even better, landuse=managed_forestry_area make the distinction more explict?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Ed. I think you make a fair point, and it was one of the many objections to boundary=forestry <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations</a></div><div>Maybe it would be helpful to make this suggestion on the landuse=forestry talk page while there aren't many uses of the tag. <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforestry" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforestry</a></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Tom<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div></div>