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

Warin 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
>>>             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.
>>
>>
>>     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
>>     https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest
>>
>>         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.
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse
>     "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
>     system.
>
> 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...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190123/00bd83dc/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list