[Tagging] landuse=clearing

[Warin]

I have made a rough draft on the OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing#Proposal

Later.

On 04/08/18 09:43, Warin wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>