[Tagging] Fwd: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 07:42:13 UTC 2019
On 23/01/19 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Date: Jan 23, 2019, 8:31 AM
> From: 61sundowner at gmail.com
> To: matkoniecz at tutanota.com
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub,
> scree…): how to map?
> On 23/01/19 17:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> Jan 23, 2019, 4:49 AM by 61sundowner at gmail.com
>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>:
>> On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>> Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundowner at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>:
>>> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that
>>> the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>> First of all: "there many, many opinions how natural=wood and
>> landuse=forest differ and
>> some people think that his makes distinction between this tags
>> useless" is not the same as
>> "there is no difference".
>> And landuse=forest is used more than three million times
>> If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry.
>> Note that many are not using "forestry" to mean "using forest to
>> produce wood".
> People within OSM are using landuse=forestry to mean that it
> provides some produce for human benefit.
> The key 'landuse' is about the human use of that land.
> "used to describe the primary use of land by humans. "
> It is not what is there .. but what the use is by humans.
> If there is concrete there, or a swamp .. that does not determine
> what the use is.
> The concrete could for a roadway, or a sports court.
> The swamp could be a native reserve, or a waste water filtration
> It is not changing that attempting to use landuse=forestry for "forest
> and associated area
> that is used to produce wood" mismatches with meaning of word forestry.
What definition of the word 'forestry' are you referring?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging