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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 03:49:33 UTC 2019


On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundowner at gmail.com:
>
>     The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
>     landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
>     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.
>
>
> (1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely unimportant
> or at least not worth different rendering
>
> (2) other people have different mismatching ideas what is the
> "real" difference between natural=wood and landuse=forest
>
> (3) there is no consistent difference in how natural=wood and 
> landuse=forest are used
> by mappers

If the is no difference between the two then there will be no problem 
depreciating landuse=forest.

There are some who do see a distinction of land use, and want to use 
that distinction.
If some landuse=forest were to be re tagged landuse=forestry as it 
matches a definition of 'landuse' will those using landuse=forest be 
happy with that?

Will they then be happy that landuse=forest becomes depreciated as it is 
seen as the same as natural=wood?

----------------------------------------------------------
A 'managed' tree area does not necessarily match the land use definition.
What is the purpose of this land management? Is there a produce that is 
derived from the trees?
If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry.

A national park is 'managed' .. In Australia no produce comes out of it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190123/57946fe0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list