[Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 06:04:22 UTC 2019
On 21/01/19 16:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and
> compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,”
> I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the
> British variety).
> Many speakers of other languages just search for an English word in an
> online traslation service and then stick that into the editor to find
> a tag.
I would hope the OSM wiki would be better than that. It certainly could
be a better method for mappers looking for some correct tags.
I recently came across 'sport=paddleboard' (non english speaking palce)
and thought of table tennis .. contacted the mapper and no it is ....in
my local version of English, a 'rescue board' used by surf life savers
to rescue people.
Yes they do have completions for it, but no permanent infrastructure
here so it does not get mapped. Only one instance in OSM so no wiki page
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 21/01/19 10:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> > The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
>> landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
>> Until several years ago the “standard” style
>> (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between
>> landuse=forest and natural=wood. However, mappers used these two
>> tags interchangeably even then. The rendering was changed to
>> match actually database usage on a global scale, which is that
>> both tags are often used to tag any area covered with trees.
>> The current rendering follows tag usage and the current wiki
>> page, which also discusses this issue in depth.
>> I wish it were possible to fix this, but the different meanings
>> of “forest” and “wood” in various English dialects make it difficult,
> The meaning of the key 'landuse' is fairly clear in any English
> The problem of the key 'natural' remains.
> Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and
> compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a
> The former is for what the land is used for.
> The latter is for the presence of plants, if you take any plant as
> being natural then natural=wood is 'acceptable' for ant tree area.'
>> even before we add other languages and cultures to the mix.
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:04 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On 21/01/19 05:52, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal
>> <penegal at live.fr <mailto:penegal at live.fr>> wrote:
>> >> All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an
>> area considered as a forest by authorities), I often
>> encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in recently teared
>> down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area,
>> although, clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are
>> still mapped as such, as they are considered to be part of
>> the forest and are treated this may, but they are
>> morphologically not the forest: the forest is the area
>> administratively regarded as such, but it is not always the
>> case; if I want, for instance, to map them as a scrub area of
>> the forest, as the polygons overlapped, they are rendered in
>> a mixed way. Is there a recommended way of handling such
>> cases without broking display? If so, what are they? The
>> landcover tag? boundary=forest_compartment? Another?
>> > This again.
>> And it will continue to occur!
>> And reoccur, again and again.
>> > There's a failed consensus here - and you risk reversion
>> with either decision.
>> > I tend to follow the principle that landuse=* denotes the
>> land USE,
>> > not the land COVER, so I don't demand that every square
>> metre of
>> > landuse=forest be covered by trees.
>> > But many do, and the renderer
>> > follows their inclination.
>> > natural=wood is a possibility to show tree cover - but that
>> leads some
>> > to argue that it has to be a 'natural' wood - whatever that
>> > I've heard it argued that the 'old second growth' forest that's
>> > increasingly common near me is still not 'natural' because
>> a skilled
>> > forester can still find the human impact. (Of course, that
>> was true
>> > even before the Europeans arrived - there was considerable
>> > pre-Columbian human impact on these forests.)
>> Those who argue this have no problem abusing the landuse tag,
>> so I see no reason why the tag 'natural' cannot be similarly
>> The OSMwiki for 'natural' even states that is can be used for
>> human effected things.
>> > landcover=trees doesn't render, but is at least unambiguous
>> that it
>> > means tree cover and nothing else.
>> > landuse=forestry, for a managed forest, has been proposed
>> but received
>> > a lukewarm reception.
>> For forestry area I tag landuse=forest with produce=trees (or
>> what ever is produced by the area for human use). This makes
>> it clare that the area is for productive human use.
>> > For the state forests and wildlife management areas around
>> here, I tag
>> > at least boundary=protected_area. (Tag with the right
>> > and add leisure=nature_reserve if it fits: 'nature reserve'
>> covers a
>> > lot of things.) If I'm mapping land cover (I seldom do), I
>> will use
>> > natural=wood to mean 'tree cover' and let others fight over it.
>> I too use natural=wood with landcover=trees to map a tree area.
>> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
>> landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from
>> The essential difference between the two is that landuse must
>> have some human benefit, a produce, and a clear way of doing
>> that is to add the rendering of a axe to the tree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging