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

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 20:44:28 UTC 2019

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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???

Ideally, if we get landuse=forestry and it eventually renders,
landuse=forest would be
deprecated and slowly replaced when a mapper encounters it.  It's a
misbegotten tag
that has been used inconsistently.  It was intended to mean what the
landuse=forestry means, but has largely been used to mean what natural=wood

landuse=forest is wrong two ways.  A forest is not landuse.  You might be
able to justify
landcover=forest but that's already dealt with by landcover=trees.  You
might be able to
make an argument for natural=forest (a big wood) in the same way we draw a
distinction between rivers and streams.  The only way it can be considered
landuse is
if the land is used for forestry, but then we have the mismatch with
natural English which
is part of the reason it was misused and part of the reason people keep

Any migration would have to be on a case-by-case basis.  If land used for
forestry is
tagged as landuse=forest it should (eventually) be migrated to
If not used for forestry then landcover=trees or natural=wood.

But all that requires that this list and the carto people manage to get all
our shit in the
same sock.

Maybe it's worth a formal proposal for landuse=forestry suggesting
dual-tagging as
an interim workaround for it not being rendered, with a later clean-up.
Because we're
going to keep coming back to this one until we finally do something about

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190121/553de21c/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list