[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Jun 13 07:20:58 UTC 2018


13. Jun 2018 07:47 by marc.gemis at gmail.com <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>:


> won't work, see e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N <https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N>
> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>




I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1424854 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1424854> - somebody included also areas 


without trees.





> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.




So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including ones in private backyards).




I think that it is not doable with current OSM data (access=private is extremely rarely

tagged on private areas) though excluding areas tagged also as landuse=residential

may be a good approximation.


 


> Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
> forest in Belgium.
> It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
> somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)




So do you want to exclude private forests or something else? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/a615e89b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list