[Tagging] Fwd: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 22:32:21 UTC 2019
On 24/01/19 09:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 07:46, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com
> <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> If we ever decide on an appropriate tagging scheme
> (landuse=logging or landuse=forestry
> + forestry=logging or whatever) and it gets rendered in some way
> that is distinct from
> natural= wood (say an axe icon at the centre) then it will be
> useful for consumers. Instead
> of "There should/should not be trees there, we must be lost" it's
> "Ah, that land is for logging
> so there may or may not be trees there, so we may not be lost."
> Was mapping yesterday, put in an area, then when I started searching
> for the description, iD brought up one of it's totally inappropriate
> suggestions of clearcut:
> together with a beautiful icon of a chainsaw! :-) A reword to say that
> this is an area dedicted to forestry / logging & may or may not be
> covered by trees at any time, may cover it?
Not all tree harvesting is done by clear felling. Some are selectively
Not all areas are 'man_made', some are 'natural' at least to my view point.
> From that perspective, maple trees for syrup are a different
> problem. Possibly still nice
> to be able to map in some way,
> Would / could they be covered under =orchard:
> I'll openly admit that I know nothing about how maple trees are grown
> - are they in a clump / plantation or spread out s individual trees
> through the woods?
There are also rubber trees, sandalwood, tea trees etc.
Most orchard trees are kept low for harvesting, that is what I expect to
find when I see one. I think maple and rubber trees are a bit higher.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging