[Tagging] Fwd: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 08:10:44 UTC 2019
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
>>>> 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?
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...
More information about the Tagging