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

[Warin]

On 23/01/19 18:42, Warin wrote:
> 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?

And a follow up question  :)

How are areas zoned/set aside to produce timber from trees to be tagged?
The trees are not always there - like crops on a farm field.
So tagging it for trees is wrong - like tagging a farmers field for 
plants that are not always there.
It is a land use - there is a produce for the land and that produce is 
for human use, so it meets the key landuse requirements.
So what value is suitable for these areas?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190123/1ff8cad9/attachment-0001.html>