[Tagging] Golf wiki page
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
> 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>>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging