[Tagging] Tagging National Forests
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Aug 17 11:14:51 UTC 2015
For me, forestry is the production of wood, using trees. So a 'forestry
area' would include mature trees, young trees, saplings, fresh plantings
and places where the trees have been removed.
I think that is what is meant by landuse = forest
On the other hand there are areas that are covered in trees .. that are
not intended to be used for wood products, so natural=wood (or
landcover=trees) is more appropriate.
On 17/08/2015 7:45 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 17.08.2015 4:10, Martijn van Exel napisał(a):
>> But after some discussion I realized that this may be a side effect of
>> a different problem, namely how we tag national forests. In the US,
>> these seem to be tagged as landuse=forest which is only partly true:
>> within a National Forest, many different land uses can occur, only one
>> of them being forest.
> We had the same problem with imports of national forests in Poland.
> It's exactly the counterintuitive problem you've mentioned: forest
> area is not always covered with trees! In our case that was probably
> just areas being property of the national forest operator "Lasy
> Państwowe" (which is the same as "National Forests" by coincidence =} ).
>> So should we just not tag National Forests as landuse=forest?
> We started redrawing the boundaries, so the forest is just the ground
> truth (only the trees), but now I'm not sure that was the best action
> to take, even if simple and useful. Somebody lately said, that the
> forest area may include burned areas, young trees fields and other
> such things. I'm not into the forestry, but it looks we have the
> opportunity to redefine our trees/forest tags, starting from general
> understanding what the forest really is and what parts it consists of.
> While discussions about landcover=trees are useful, they are way too
> narrow. I feel we need to rethink the whole tree tagging in OSM,
> because we have no general agreement on the subject:
> The whole issue is not as straightforward as one can reasonably
> expect. According to Wikipedia:
> "A forest is a large area of land covered with trees or other woody
> vegetation. Hundreds of more precise definitions of forest are used
> throughout the world, incorporating factors such as tree density, tree
> height, land use, legal standing and ecological function.
> According to the widely-used United Nations Food and Agriculture
> Organization definition, forests covered an area of four billion
> hectares (15 million square miles) or approximately 30 percent of the
> world's land area in 2006."
> The FAO definition is linked:
> and it has about 17 pages on my screen. Actually it's rather good that
> it is so comprehensive, because it may be a good base for
> understanding the background and to identify parts we may be
> interested in. Another idea is to research common GIS practices
> regarding trees.
> Anybody willing to get deeper into the subject?
More information about the Tagging