[Tagging] Multipolygon (several outers) forest with different leaf_types: mapping strategy?
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Mar 14 00:23:05 UTC 2019
On 14/03/19 10:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Normally we should map features that are “real” and “current”, and is
> easiest to do for things that can be observed in person.
> This suggests mapping each patch of trees as a separate polygon or
> closed way, based on having the same leaf_type and leaf_cycle. Usually
> it’s only necessary to use a multipolygon when there is a hole in a
> donut-shaped woodland. Each area should be tagged natural=forest or
> natural=wood in addition to the leaf_type/leaf_cycle tags
> So then the problem is, how do you show that all of these patches of
> trees are part of one “forest”?
> How can another mapper verify where the named “forest” ends? Is it a
> type of boundary=protected_area that is designated by the local
> government or private landowner? Is there a fence around the whole
> area? It looks like it is not a single continuous area, so this makes
> it even harder to verify where the named forest ends.
A site relation could be the best solution?
> I don’t know much about the original poster’s example, but it looks
> like the name is “<Village name> Communal Forest”, and the areas
> included in the relation are on separate sides of the village and
> divided by farmland. Also, there are other areas of woodland right
> next to the edge of this forest.
> Perhaps this is mapping land ownership parcels rather than a “real”
> physical feature?
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:14 PM marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> Le 13.03.19 à 14:59, David Marchal a écrit :
> > the JOSM validator claims that contiguous outer members is an error
> yes it's- the sum of all outer should not have a "internal" way
> like this one
> so draw a new way for the outer of this part
> or split currents ways to include only the outer part in the relation
> and make another relation for the leaf_type
> > openstreetmap.org <http://openstreetmap.org> renders a misplaced
> It doesn't seem so misplaced
> but that's not due to the tag
> > no leaf_type
> it's hard to render a forêt with several leaf_type
> you may put natural=wood landcover=trees to every part of the forêt
> having a different leaf_type
> but you 'll have a duplicate forest : a foret at the relatin level
> at every part. currently i'm not aware of a good schema to avoid this
> (you can trick some QA tools by using landuse=forest for the
> relationship and natural=wook for all parts, but see the wiki for
> forest, the meaning of these 2 tags is random/variable depending
> on the
> mapper, the only meaning you can get is "there are trees", the same
> meaning for the 2 tag)
-1. Best not to try and 'trick' things, gets confusing too quickly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging