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

Tod Fitch tod at fitchdesign.com
Tue Jan 22 21:08:50 UTC 2019

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Adam Franco <adamfranco at gmail.com> wrote:
> As someone who has mapped a lot of landcover & landuse <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/44.0219/-73.1532> in my local area, I welcome sorting out the confusion that is the current state of natural=wood/landuse=forest. Many parcels around me are managed for forestry purposes but don't have trees currently while others had been cleared at one point, but have returned to forest due to neglect and are not managed for timber production.  My current practice is to map areas covered in trees as landcover=trees + natural=wood, but I'd love to drop the natural=wood if landcover=trees was rendered. Generally, I don't imagine that I'd map much landuse=forestry, which is probably a good thing as I don't often know which land is managed for productive forestry and which is more negligent forest succession. In cases where the management is known and is important to be known, then landuse=forestry becomes a useful tag as it is unambiguous as to what it means.
> I hope that a shift toward landuse=forestry would also include a shift toward landcover=*, in particular landcover=trees as the rightful clear designation that "there are trees here". Here is an old landcover=* proposal <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover> that might be resurrected and updated.
> I'm not sure if I would want landuse=forestry to be rendered by default or if so, how I would like it to be styled. Generally in my region, areas managed for forestry are more parcel boundaries than anything equating the land-cover on the ground, so renderings that include iconography like trees are problematic if those icons overlap and conflict with other land covers. I see landuse=forestry as something more useful for custom maps or maybe something that would be rendered as a subtle modifier to more-visible land-cover renderings which are more directly visible and impactful when traversing the landscape.
> Best,
> Adam

+10 for this!

I also dual tag areas with trees as natural=wood and landcover=trees with the hope being that landcover=trees becomes the norm.

Perhaps the way forward would be to change the wiki to indicate that landuse=forest is deprecated due to its confused usage. Add some text to the page directing mappers to either landcover=trees if they are simply mapping the presence of trees or landuse=forestry if they are mapping an area used for the production of wood products (lumber, paper, etc.) that may or may not have trees on it a the moment.

Not rendering landuse=forestry on the default OSM map to reduce “tagging for the renderer” is an interesting idea. I’ll have to think about that but it does have some appeal.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190122/f0296c53/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190122/f0296c53/attachment.sig>

More information about the Tagging mailing list