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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 21:52:57 UTC 2019


On 23/01/19 19:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> I think in many cases place=location would be fine.

Depends on what the name is seen as being.

> A forest or wood ("bos" (small) or "woud" (for bigger area) in Dutch)
> is typically an area with primarily trees, but also grass areas,
> pools, cuttings for paths and tracks, etc.
>
> So I was thinking that natural=wood (or landuse=forest) should only be
> rendered as an boundary. It can have a name (which should be
> rendered).
>   For the describing the land-cover inside that area, one would use
> landcover or natural=water. Those would be used to "fill the map with
> colour". The landcovers areas can be multi-polygons, e.g. to cut out
> water areas from landcover=tree

Rendering questions elsewhere :) However ...

To me the rendering question is firstly - chose to render what as a solid colour - land cover or land use.

The the other one can be rendered another way.

But choosing individual mixed land covers and land uses to the rendered as solid covers just leads to confusion.

Unfortunately many others disagree here ... :)
The main OSM map renders grass, trees as solid colours, and residential areas too .. that is not good to me.

>
> m.
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:08 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nice question Marc.
>>
>> What is this named area?
>> Does it have some (taggable) function?
>> Is it 'just' a location? place=location?
>>
>>
>> On 23/01/19 18:55, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>> And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the
>>> outer way ?
>>>    I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named
>>> area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that
>>> correct ?
>>>
>>> m.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:51 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 23/01/19 18:25, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>>>> The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be
>>>>> based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area
>>>>> landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of the
>>>>> landcover key for the three main values: trees, grass and scrub. Then,
>>>>> bump the issues with the main renderers and editors. How to do that is
>>>>> not for this list, you are absolutely right about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only after that step, rediscuss the landuse key.
>>>> This developed from a simple question of how to map a tree area that has
>>>> holes in it of scrub etc.
>>>> A fairly simply question?
>>>>
>>>> The simple answer is to map the tree area as a relation with;
>>>> natural=wood (even if not 'natural' as OSM acepts that the key 'natural'
>>>> encompass things that many regard as not 'natural'), type multipolygon,
>>>> The surrounding closed way with the role outer.
>>>> Then place simple closed way/s for the hole/s tagged natural=scrub as
>>>> appropriate .. and then place them in the relation with the role 'inner'.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> The problem came the simple use of the word forest!
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to wait for other steps to use the tag
>>>> landuse=forestry, it does not conflict with 'landcover' or 'natural'
>>>> tagging.
>>>> Many keys and values are developed in parallel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___________________





More information about the Tagging mailing list