[Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders

[Kytömaa Lauri]

Simon Wüllhorst wrote:
>I was a bit confused about the inconsistent usage of landuse and natural tag. Sometimes it’s not clear why there is used the natural or landuse key. 

Landuse and natural tags have different keys, so that
you can have both; they describe different properties.
It's just that often or sometimes some landuse values 
virtually always imply some natural elements within that
area, so we don't even bother tagging them. E.g. 
farmland is just landuse=farm, without natural=wheat 
or similar, or a landuse=quarry is without 
natural=bedrock or similar.

>For forrest you have both (landuse=forrest and natural=wood) but it seems to be the only one where you can decide whether it is managed or not.

The forest vs. wood is a bad example anyway, since
years back somebody made a mass edit and nobody
noticed back then that you can have an area used for 
forestry (landuse=forest), that doesn't have trees 
(natural=wood) in it for several years; when the area
has been clearcut / had a full chop recently. I.e. the
combination of tags is not redundant, which was the
only reason given for the changes back then. The 
original way was to use natural=wood with 
landuse=forest, or by itself; many still use them like 
that.

So, for the field borders, one could pick any or several
out of (at least) the following:
* natural=scrub
* natural=grassland
* landuse=meadow (meadows exist that aren't for
hay harvesting)
* natural=meadow

Even other tags may be suitable, depending on local 
ecological conditions.

-- 
Alv