61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 23:43:46 UTC 2018
On 29/07/18 20:56, Andy Townsend wrote:
> What I've tended to do with clearings is:
> o natural=wood for "here be trees", with leaf_type added.
> o If there's a large "landuse=forest" area already and that
> encompasses wood, clearings, ponds etc. (and there often is), leave
> that as "landuse=forest" or add as "landuse=forestry" (note - that tag
> is in very little use)
> o Add some kind of note for clearings, especially where trees have
> gone but are present on some imagery, and also some kind of note on
> tree areas that are newly planted and won't look like trees on imagery.
> This is all far from perfect, especially given all the other problems
> of mapping in trees (not all bits of woods accessible, imagery out of
> date, GPS traces miles off because of the trees, etc.).
I have made many 'holes' in areas of trees. It is simple to do, and
conveys the information 'here be a gap'. I usually have left no note as
I can either see what is there and map it, be lazy and leave it for
someone else (in which case I'll be lazy and not leave a note too) or I
cannot see what is there so just leave it.
I do usually add a source tag to the way ... that way future mappers can
see directly where the thing came from without looking at a change set -
which may have several sources!!!
> I wouldn't personally remove "invalid" landuse tags* unless I had a
> pretty good idea of what to replace them with (usually I'd need to
> have been there), and I'd certainly be wary of removing information
> that might be useful to future mappers, even if that information is
> only "this was mapped by an inexperienced HOT mapper using very odd
> tags a long time ago".
The problem is that leaving it encourages it use and, being
undocumented, it use in ways that are different for the way in which it
If it is a land use .. then 'clearing' is not it. It could be a yard for
live stock or a camp site. It could be many useful things.. but
'clearing' is not what it is. No, 'clearing' denotes a relief in the
local features - usually the vegetation coverage.
As this is not a 'landuse' but a landcover I think moving it to
landcover=clearing would be a good first step.
Then back that up by documenting it with 4 ways of mapping it (state
what is there, state the surrounding landcover, do both of those or tag
with landcover=clearing .. with some detail on the 4 methods and links
to them and some comment on best to worst practice/rendering. I think
that will be helpful.
More information about the Tagging