[Tagging] Fwd: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?
lionel.giard at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 14:12:22 UTC 2019
To summarize the different points of the recent messages, there are 2
points concerning the tag changes described as an alternative to
landuse=forest or natural=wood :
1) *Landcover :*
- landcover=trees -> for areas with trees (instead of *landuse=forest*
- landcover=grass -> for areas with grass (replacing landuse=grass);
- landcover=scrub -> for scrub areas [ *Do we need to replace
natural=scrub here or does it still give another information ?* ];
2) *Landuse : *
- landuse=logging -> for areas with logging activities (instead of
landuse=forest or natural=wood).
*landuse=forest* and *natural=wood **will still exist*, and may be
deprecated (or not) at a later time. I say that in order to convince people
more easily, we could just offer a "better" alternative to the current
tagging, and build up on that ! ;-)
At this moment, I suppose that landuse=forest could still be used (if you
need it) for the other forests that are used for another purpose than
logging (like leisure), until we have better tag for it. But it would only
mean an area "*with some forest usage*" (no longer for the landcover or
Note that the landuse should probably be rendered "below" the landcover (if
it exist). It should be easy as it is already what is happening, if you
have a landuse=residential and you draw landuse=grass or landuse=forest,
these are rendered above the landuse residential as both are supposed to be
"landcover". The difference is that we will be able to have better
differenciation like this. One improvement could maybe be to use slightly
different color for landuse=logging than for landcover=trees, so it could
be dissociated ?
Following the general definition of landcover and landuse (used in
geography), they could both coexist next to each other on a polygon (as a
data user could search only for one of them).
Le mer. 23 janv. 2019 à 13:36, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 08:29, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
>> You may prefer to use landuse=logging or something that has a clear
>> rather than landuse=forestry to tag areas used primarily to grow wood.
> Given the wikipedia page you pointed to earlier in the thread, I agree
> landuse=forestry is a bad idea (almost as bad as landuse=forest was). What
> I was after was a way of distinguishing a large area in which trees are
> logged, part of which may currently have trees on it and part of which may
> currently have stumps, or saplings, or scrub. Something with defined
> which do not change from year to year and so will not have to have the
> changed every time newer aerial imagery comes along. I agree that
> landuse=logging is a far better tag than landuse=forestry.
> So is it possible for us to agree on landuse=logging here as an
> alternative to
> landuse=forest? To agree that dual-tagging is permissible until the day
> landuse=logging is rendered in standard carto? To agree that
> be deprecated once landuse=logging is rendered? To agree that, once
> is rendered, the wiki should say that landuse=logging + natural=wood can be
> simplified to just landuse=logging when editing existing features that are
> If we can agree to all that here (and, let's recognize that there's
> nothing stopping anybody
> using landuse=logging + natural=wood right now) do we need a formal
> proposal or is
> a "show of hands" here sufficient to allow it to be added to the wiki?
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging