[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Jun 6 15:38:15 UTC 2018
6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>:
> So we have available to us:
> landcover=trees - seldom used, but available and unambiguous
> natural=wood - controversial, what qualifies a woodland as being 'natural?' There's next to no land anywhere on the planet that has not been managed by humans in some way.
> landuse=forest - asserted to be synonymous with landcover=trees, but has a natural-language meaning that it designates a forestry land use.
landuse=forest was burned for purposes of tagging forestry land use - of anyone cares about it they should use a new tag (that probably needs to be invented).
> boundary=protected_area - I suppose, but sorting out 'this is protected for forestry' requires parsing not only protect_class but also the natural-language 'protection_title' or other nonstandard tagging.
Using this tag to mark forestry areas seems to be quite tortured interpretation.
> leisure=nature_reserve - At least this one renders, and a lot of things are nature reserves. Including working forests, maybe, I suppose, but this smells of tagging for the renderer.
Nature reserves of for, well, nature reserves that are not limited to forest.
That may be in some regions limited to forestry areas but it would be a local quirk.
> Nothing really fits "This land is used for production of forest products"
So be tag should be invented by someone who cares about it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging