[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
pelderson at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 10:27:02 UTC 2018
For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be
implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified.
I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM
Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass,
trees, scrub, and sand.
2018-06-12 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:
> On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
>> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
>> called "Xyz Forest"
>> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
>> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
>> more trees.
>> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
> you're quibbling about the size of a group.
> Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees. It is a nature reserve and so it
> is not used for forestry (aka logging). There may
> be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically
> logged on a wide scale.
> This is why landuse=forest is problematical. Sherwood Forest is not land
> used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
> Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
> says "forest").
> That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
> landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
> idea. I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in
> combination with landuse=forestry because what
> is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or
> I am coming around to this way of tagging.
> Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
> Some are forestry (yea!)
> Some are parks ..
> Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map
> colours ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is legally
> allowed in OSM)
> Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is
> forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging