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

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 07:03:52 UTC 2019


I think there can be no outcome of any discussion about landuse unless the
landcover is separated from the landuse first.

I think the only way forward is to actually do that first. The growth of
the landcover key shows that many mappers think that it's a good idea to
map landcover separately.

I would gladly see the landcover key recognised and rendered for the three
main values.
Only then, discuss the main landuse key values and modifyers again.

Else, we're just repeating the same discussion over and over.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 23 jan. 2019 om 04:50 schreef Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190123/0697ec43/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list