[Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 20:19:23 UTC 2019

On 22/01/19 04:29, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:45 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What if we suggest in the wiki that where trees are used for actual forestry people are
>> encouraged to dual-tag with landuse=forestry + natural=wood on the basis that with
>> enough usage the carto group will render landuse=forestry AND that when they do there
>> will be an effort to remove natural=wood when it appears in combination with
>> landuse=forestry.  What was I thinking?  That might actually get us somewhere, and we
>> wouldn't want to do that.
> Your post was dead on target, right up to here -  and the dual-tagging
> suggestion is a good one. I do that a lot - precise tagging that
> doesn't render combined with imprecise tagging 'for the renderer'. By
> this I do not mean tagging falsehoods because they render nicely,
> which is unacceptable, but rather tagging features like
> 'leisure=nature_reserve', which covers anything from the vacant lot
> that the city has set aside for birds to the vast tracts of a national
> forest. I can try to be accurate with protect_class and the like while
> not sacrificing the ability to have the tagged feature show up on
> maps.
> Nevertheless, even if all the intended tags render correctly, there's
> nothing wrong with tagging both land USE and land COVER - which are
> two different things. One is human and social - "to what use are
> people putting this land?" "They're growing trees on it."

It is more than just growing.

The growing thing has to produce something for human benefit, usually some form of harvesting to provide a produce.

Grass can be grown to produce turf. Trees can be grown to produce timber.

If there is no human benefit from the plant growth then the landuse cannot be the plant.
The area may not have any 'land use' (i.e. a wasteland) or it may be used for conservation, but it is not related to the plant.

> The other
> is physical, "if I look down on this land from above, what will I
> see?" "It's a beaver pond in the middle of a forest."
> A landuse=forest[ry] will surely be largely natural=wood and/or
> landcover=trees. But forestry is a long game. Near me there are state
> forests that are unquestionably managed for production (with public
> recreation a secondary goal), that are mostly 'trees', but some
> 'grass' or 'scrub' (recently acquired parcels, or recently logged
> ones), and even some water and wetland (thank you, beavers!).  The
> fact that an area is a beaver pond today doesn't mean that it won't
> progress through marsh, scrub, laurel meadow, alder thicket, and so on
> to forest over the years - and the land is managed for the long haul,
> in the expectation of such a succession. Forestry is the land USE -
> the land COVER varies. Both are important.
> Putting landcover=trees or natural=wood on the pond is wrong. There's
> no wood there.  Putting landuse=forest[ry] on the pond may be right.
> When the beavers move away, that land will be productive again . In
> fact, it will likely be more productive than before they arrived.
> There's pretty solid evidence that beavers improve the forest over
> time.

Some forestry operations used to use rivers to transport the timber down stream to a lake.


My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood...

what happens to the remaining landuse=forest?
Will that finally be recognised as the same as natural=wood and be migrated to natural=wood???

More information about the Tagging mailing list