[Tagging] landuse=forest VS natural=wood

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 08:57:47 UTC 2013


To me, the word and tag "landuse" implies human intervention or intention;
people are using the land or area in a certain way. Natural implies
something hat exists in a state of nature, in other words, not made or
regulated by man. Regardless of prior usage, therefore, I tend to agree
with Werner.

Dave


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Werner Poppele <poppele at hm.edu> wrote:

> Guten Morgen,
>
> Ich ging bisher davon aus, dass jeder irgendwie genutzte Wald als
> landuse=forest getaggt wird. Der Tag natural=wood fuer nicht genutzten
> Wald. Dabei ist schon das Wort "Nutzung" schwierig.
>
> Nutzung kann ueber die reine Holzgewinnung hinausgehen (Schutzwald im
> Gebirge, Gruene Lunge, Freizeit+Erholung usw.).
>
> Waelder mit natural=wood sind nach meinem Verstaendnis Urwaelder, Waelder
> im Hochgebirge oder Waelder in Nationalparks usw. Meines Erachtens sind das
> auch kleinere Waldstuecke in unseren Breiten, die voellig sich selbst
> ueberlassen sind und die zum Beispiel zur Erforschung der Waldbiologie
> eingerichtet wurden.
>
> Beim Mappen in Irland habe ich nun demgemaess Flaechen mit natural=wood
> nach landuse=forest geaendert, was einen Widerspruch eines irischen Mappers
> verursacht hat (siehe den Auszug aus seiner Email).
>
> Wie ist denn der aktuelle Stand zu dem Thema ? Gibt es einen Konsens oder
> wird von den Mappern in verschiedenen Laendern dies unterschiedlich gesehen
> ?
>
> Vielen Dank
>
> WernerP
>
>
> Auszug aus derEmail an mich:
>
> Concerning the wood vs forest distinction however, I disagree and believe
> (like the majority of Irish mapers AFAIK) that landuse=forest should be
> reserved for managed forests intended for harvesting, aka forestry areas.
>
> I know that there are differing views on the wiki, but I really think that
> approach 1 is the only practical/interesting one :
>
>     * Unless "intended for harvesting" is the criterion, pretty much all
> of Europe would qualify as landuse=forest instead of natural=wood
>     * That criterion is also the one that makes the biggest difference
> (beside type of trees) when walking through a forest
>     * "virgin" woodland is close to extinct on Earth, and even experts are
> likely to disagree on wether a given area qualifies or not
>     * Similarly, figuring out wether an area is "managed" or not is very
> hard. Positives can be clear, but negatives pretty much require an
> interview of the landowner.
>     * With some exceptions like Millenium Forests, forestry area can
> usualy be distinguished from satellite imagery.
>     * Using landuse=forest for forestry also allows tagging things like
> natural=scrub to be distinguish "what it is" from "what it is used for".
>     * woodland=virgin and/or managed=no can also be added to a
> natural=wood to improve precision.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131004/d9bb116a/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list