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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 08:15:39 UTC 2018


On 08/06/18 08:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> & it's an impossible question to answer, but how many of those 3.5 
> million tags are on "areas of land managed for forestry"? :-) t be the sa

 From a random look around .. about half.

There is yet another tag that has a fair amount of use ... landuse=logging.
I thing this might be landuse=forestry but in the harvesting stage.
I am yet to look at the age of these areas existence, I suspect they are 
older than the time taken for trees to start growing and should be 
landuse=forestry.
Mainly in central Russia (or what ever it is called nowerdays, sorry) 
and western Europe.
Is it too late to stop this .. probably. It may well be the new 
landuse=forestry! Well intended to separate it out from anyone thinking 
of 'just trees'?

>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> On 8 June 2018 at 08:11, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>         I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where
>         forestry is actually how the land is used.
>         So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more
>         consistently.
>
>
>     So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5
>     million uses?
>
>     I'm sure that you have only the best of intentions, but, er, good
>     luck with that :)
>
Yep.
I too am of the opinion that landuse=forest is not a tag for future use, 
the meaning is taken 2 ways.
Much better to have 2 tags available for use of each meaning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/11cb605b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list