[Tagging] landuse=clearing

Warin 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 
was used.
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 mailing list