[Tagging] Golf wiki page

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 21:44:57 UTC 2018


On 17/07/18 06:31, Alan Grant wrote:
> But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for golf 
> courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover that may 
> exist between the fairways and greens?

And those areas can and should be tagged natural=wood -it renders, it 
does not imply a land use, and 'natural' is taken as both natural and 
unnatural.

>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 22:21, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kevin Kenny
>     <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>         On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>         <matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>> wrote:
>         > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area
>         used for logging-related purposes
>
>         And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
>         that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the
>         former.
>
>
>     As I recall (recollection may be flawed) the last go-round, the
>     following seemed to be the case:
>
>     1) landuse=forest was intended for forestry, but the value
>     (forest) was badly chosen.  Growing trees to be logged
>     is a use of the land.
>
>     2) landcover=trees wasn't currently rendered (my recollection may
>     be particularly bad on that).
>
>     3) Because landuse=forest is badly named (should have been
>     forestry) and therefore misleading, and because
>     landcover=trees isn't rendered, landuse=forest was being used for
>     two things.
>
>     4) Usual arguments about what constitutes a forest versus a wood
>     and other noise as the whole thread
>     degenerated.
>
>     My take on it: tag trees for logging purposes as landuse=forestry
>     (note spelling) and trees not for logging
>     purposes as landcover=trees or natural=wood as preferred (we can
>     have that argument another time). Then
>     change the wiki to say that landuse=forest is deprecated because
>     it gets misunderstood and misused, and point
>     to the alternatives.  Introducing two new tags that supersede an
>     existing tag used ambiguously is the only hope of
>     making this sort of thing work.
>
>     Landuse=forestry is less likely to be misused because "forestry"
>     means logging and because we'd have
>     landcover=trees (which might even constitute something named "XYZ
>     Forest".
>
>     None of this stands a chance of happening unless OSM Carto agrees
>     to implement landuse=forestry and
>     landcover=trees.  People don't use tags that don't render.  Well,
>     for small, specialized things they do, but for big
>     areas of trees they won't.  OSM Carto often won't implement new
>     tags because they're not used much; people don't
>     use new tags that don't render.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  What a
>     shame we don't have a forum like a mailing list where
>     we could all agree on sensible things to do and then they happen.
>
>     -- 
>     Paul
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180717/9be7fbcd/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list