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

[Warin]

On 24/01/19 09:06, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:36 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Way back in the thread you wrote:
>>>>>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags.
> That was Mateusz, not me!

Hey .. it was me!!! Can you not tell?:-P

>
> In any case, if the sole determinant for whether something is a 'wood'
> or a 'forest' is its land area, then the distinctive tag is redundant.
> If it is an indicator of 'relative importance', then it may be
> meaningful, but will likely run afoul of verifiability.
>
> I am given to understand that in the UK, the 'hamlet', 'village',
> 'town', 'city' hierarchy is indeed loosely based on services: a
> village has at least a church; a town has a market; a city has a
> cathedral or a university. Other countries do it differently, and
> you're right that at present the distinction is fairly subjective (and
> amounts to tagging for the renderer: at what zoom level should a
> municipality or settlement appear?) I'm OK with that because I can't
> think of a better way to do it!
>
>> My point stands.  OSM distinguishes between the sizes of localities (in order to render them
>> differently at different zooms) by a means that is not an area or a dimension.  The choice of
>> hamlet/village/etc. is supposedly related to population size but only loosely, especially when
>> some mappers take the number and type of available services into account as well as
>> (or instead of) the population.
> We appear to be in 'violent agreement', then. Making the distinction
> based solely on a dimension is a mistake. If it's 'relative
> importance' I can live with it, but need a better guideline about how
> to make the distinction. (I don't insist on a quantitative one, just a
> loose definition.)

Basing it 'importance' on the population is a 'guide'.
The actual population may not be known, keeps changing and the population could be based on the area the place services,
not just its local residential area.

It has to be a subjective assessment. And it has to be locally relevant.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#City.2C_Town_or_Village.3F
(Caution: I think I have had a hand in those words!)