[Imports] Slovenia landcover import RABA-KGZ review

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/11/2015 10:36, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2015-11-27 00:41:35, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> On 26/11/2015 22:04, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> And you _can't_ tag for natural=wood, because if someone uses it for wood
>>> production, that's incorrect.
>> You're going to have to explain that one a bit more I think....
> See natural=wood at wiki. "Woodland with no forestry", first sentence.

Well - to be clear that change was made in:

Revision as of 17:06, 18 August 2012 by Jamicu 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu> (Talk 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamicu> | contribs 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jamicu>) 
(Edited table remove disputed primeval requirement)


It was clearly an attempt to replace the previous contentious (and 
inaccurate) description ("Natural primeval woodland") with something 
else, but just because someone changes a wiki description it doesn't 
mean that the meaning implied when mappers all around the world mapped 
stuff changes.

Also, the simple (and misleading) "Woodland with no forestry" 
description that you refer to was actually removed in:

Revision as of 07:21, 9 May 2015 by Mateusz Konieczny 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny> (Talk 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny> | 
contribs 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mateusz_Konieczny>) 
(Forest. Sometimes considered to have restricted meaning ")


That description is much better - it does go some way to explain the 
problem.

Right now, the authors of OSM's standard stylesheet have taken the view 
that "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest" only mean "here be trees".  
"landcover=trees"* isn't rendered (though that's complicated by keys in 
the current stylesheet).  Other renderers and other data consumers may 
take other views of course**, but that would vary by region internationally.

The key question every data consumer must ask is "what did mappers think 
when they tagged things as X", not "what does the wiki say".

> Yes, there's some confusion around this one.

I'd agree with that :)

Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

* https://xkcd.com/927/ , obviously

** FWIW I've tried to concentrate on other keys for rendering: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/35220 .  No good 
answer to "forestry areas" yet though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20151127/e40e38b1/attachment.html>