[Tagging] Forestry/logging

[Warin]

On 10-Apr-17 06:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 10. Apr 2017, at 07:17, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us> wrote:
>>
>> Any suggestions on how we should be mapping forested areas would be appreciated.
>
> my suggestion is to map the following 3 aspects (not necessarily in the same osm feature, but orthogonally, also overlapping if required):
>
> natural=*. the named feature/forest, also nested smaller ones inside bigger ones. This is for toponyms and geographic features, e.g. a pond in the forest would be included

I would argue that a pond is a land cover. :)

I don't 'like' the key natural -
as it stands for things that I regard as 'unnatural' and covers things in one key that can be classified as
  'land cover' e.g. woods
or
'land forms' e.g. cliffs

>
> landuse =forest. areas used to grow and log trees (actual current human use of land), a pond would not be included but a clearcut area still dedicated to growing trees would.
>
> landcover=trees
> all kind of areas where trees grow (physical aspect)
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
It is unfortunate that water (covering 2/3rds of the earth's surface) has a few different methods of tagging in OSM ... waterway and natural.
I think waterway comes from a transport thinking similar to highway.
And 'natural' comes from the need to tag water that has no transportation application.