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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 09:44 by marc.gemis at gmail.com <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>:


> Private vs. public does not matter.
> Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
> A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.
>
> According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
> of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
> "groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
> For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
> ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
> about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
> waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
> also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
> paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
> parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
> countries can have different definitions.
>




Note that you look for a specific kind of forests. 





For example there are forests that are




- logging oriented (with no paths and tracks usable only by heavy machinery)


- nature reserves, with no entry allowed

- private forests, with entry controlled by owner

- and many more cases.




Excluding private gardens and tree rows would be just a start (though it may

be sufficient in case of Belgium).




> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)




I use landuse=forest in that case (to mark area as covered by trees,

not to record landuse).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/6be12745/attachment-0001.html>