[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 22:42:28 UTC 2018
On 13/06/18 23:01, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
>> <matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>>:
>> 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdreist at gmail.com
>> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
>> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
>> <matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>>:
>> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag
>> (rarely done for obvious reasons) and
>> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is
>> owned by the public or privately owned?
>> Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this
>> the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the
> The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be
> beyond the mappers tolerance.
> The may want to map other things with that time that they see as
> much more important and usefull to them.
> If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it
> is ultimately the State Government .
> Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
> Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special
> event on - like a car rally.
> These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not
> normally mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for
> I don't do a lot of landcover mapping, because I render my own maps
> with third-party landcover data. I do landcover for detail mapping in
> my own neighbourhood, for producing large-scale trail maps of specific
> small areas, or to override trouble spots in the third-party
> database.willing o
> For landuse mapping, what chiefly concerns me is recreational
> To this end, I maintain a few imports of public lands in New York
> State, as well as mapping various public-access lands that are in
> private hands. I do try to map access in places where it's
> complicated. Some of these lands are managed for forestry - and I have
> no tag available to indicate this. Neither 'natural=wood' nor
> 'landuse=forest' appear to mean anything more than 'shade this area
> green on the map, and draw trees on it.'
> If this discussion reaches some sort of rough consensus, I'm certainly
> willing to do mechanical edits updating the few thousand areas that I
> imported. (Mechanical edits to correct systematic errors in imported
> data are, as I understand it, acceptable.) I'm not very happy with the
> use of those imports as evidence of 'this is tagging practice' - the
> current import is more 'least worst' tagging that will remain
> consistent with current rendering and with imports in neighbouring
> states. I'm NOT willing to retag with mechanical edits if the price of
> the retagging will be that the State Forests, Wildlife Management
> Areas, Watershed Recreation Areas, and so on will disappear from the
> main map.
> What I want:
> Showing that land is treed ('natural=wood' or the proposed
> 'landcover=trees') is easy enough. 'landuse=forest' appears to be
> synonymous with both 'natural=wood' and 'landcover=trees' and so isn't
> useful to me, although I've tried consistently to use it to indicate
> designated land use and not landcover. The result has been rendering
> gaffes where trees are overlaid on water - but they don't bother me
> excessively, since most of those ponds will have trees again in a few
> decades, as human and beaver remodeling of the land shifts elsewhere.
> 'landuse=forest' to designate landcover is unworkable. As Warin said
> in an earlier post, a piece of land has one use. (I oversimplify; land
> may have secondary uses, for example, land managed for forestry with
> public recreation as a secondary objective, but NEITHER of those
> implies that a particular square metre is or is not tree-covered.) An
> object like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175474 is an
> example. The land USE is, correctly, military - the land is used, for
> instance, for live fire exercises. The land COVER for large parts of
> the Academy is trees - what an ecologist would call 'temperate mixed
> That treed land cover is contiguous with Bear Mountain/Harriman State
> Park (which should be boundary=national_park, but that's a different
> argument), Black Rock Forest (private land open to public outside
> certain seasons), Storm King State Park (managed, effectively, as
> leisure=nature_reserve), Storm King Art Center (amenity=museum - an
> outdoor sculpture gallery in a partly-wooded setting), and various
> private holdings (where I'm not trying to tag land use).
> So, what I'm after is: some tag that I can use for something like the
> International Paper tract in the Adirondacks (not mapped because (a) I
> haven't got to it, and (b) the tagging would be just too
> controversial). It is owned by a private common-stock corporation. It
> is managed to grow trees for paper (as you might imagine). It is
> ordinarily open to the public to hike, ski, snowshoe, and so on except
> in areas where active logging or reforestation is in progress. Several
> public trails traverse it. It is not a nature reserve of any sort. It
> is private forest land. (I oversimplify; it's within the boundaries of
> the Adirondack Park, and so regulated tightly by the Adirondack Park
> Agency, which is a public-private partnership. It's complicated, but
> to a first approximation, it's 'private land open to the publlic.')
> So I'd like to see landuse=forestry foot=yes ski=yes
> operator='International Paper' etc. for this parcel. The really
> important aspect is the access, but it's a little strange to have
> access tagging without the object's representing some sort of tangible
> I'd earlier have said, 'landuse=forest', but that tag has become too
> ambiguous. There's no good tag available to me. I'm not convinced by
> the arguments that we can't introduce a new tag: "It will just be
> abused the same way that landuse=forest was" is simply a counsel of
> despair. "It conflicts with existing practice." Any new tag conflicts
> with existing practice. "There are too many areas out there to change
> them." I'm volunteering to change the few thousand that I entered, as
> needed. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's willing to put in the work!
I'd think there is around 1,000 here that I can change. About 600 in
'my' state and the rest I hope to find mapped in OSM other states.
At the moment for rendering green with trees there is natural=wood. And
that can be combined with landuse=forestry.
To me the natural=wood tag is a 'tagging for the render' thing, and I
don't like it. But it may be a work around until landuse=forestry is
accepted and rendered in a different way to 'there be trees'.
I'd not add the tag landcover=trees, in the long term I'd remove
natural=wood from landuse=forestry to keep landuse=forestry clean of
'there be trees'.
There is also landuse=logging which I suspect is really forestry ...
over 47,000 uses of that tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging