[Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> irrigated vs non-irrigated crops

That's a good idea. There is a key irrigated=yes/no in use, that can
be added to areas of landuse=farmland, and you can also tag crop=rice
for example. But it needs to be documented with a wiki page:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/irrigated

There's also irrigation=* which can be used to describe the type of
irrigation system? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/irrigation

> without having to establish a primary and a secondary usage

For understanding land use and also for a reasonable rendering, it's
very helpful to describe the primary use of the land.

There's a big difference between a pasture which has a few trees, and
a forestry area where animals area occasionally allowed to graze.

Usually the main land use should be the one that is most economically
important, and also should take up the most land.

Most database users are going to be interested in the main use of the
land, so it's a good idea to always tag this.

For this reason, semicolon-separated values are not a good idea. They
do not make it clear what should be considered the primary feature of
the area.

> subtags that would have no consequence as to how the map is rendered

Subtags can result in different rendering, if you choose to interpret
the other tags. Any renderer will have to make choices about what tags
should be shown in a particular style.

On 9/19/19, Diego Cruz <ginkarasu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think that this case and my dehesas pose the same problem, which is that
> the current collection of possible landuses is too narrow. In my opinion
> there are three options:
>
> a) Expand the number of landuse values to adapt to different realities in
> other parts of the world. Apart from dehesas, in Spain (and many other dry
> places), there should be a differentiation between irrigated crops and
> non-irrigated crops (it's a completely different landscape and it's not
> subject to variations), in the same way as there is a difference between
> meadow and pasture (from my climatic point of view they could be considered
> redundant, as they are just grassy places [I know the difference, by the
> way, I'm just trying to prove a point]).
>
> b) Allow for a solution where two or more landuse values are possible,
> without having to establish a primary and a secondary usage, which would
> prove impossible in most cases. It could be rendered with the classic
> stripes of different colours, for example. I'm not an expert and I don't
> know how that could be possible. Maybe with landuse=mixed or
> semicolon-separated values as some colleagues suggest?
>
> c) Adapt to the current structure using subtags that would have no
> consequence as to how the map is rendered (many of us are not satisfied
> with this).
>
> Best regards
> Diego
>
> El jue., 19 sept. 2019 a las 14:23, Joseph Eisenberg (<
> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> I have to disagree with the wikipedia article. Fruit orchards are not
>> frequently mentioned with "silvopasture"
>>
>> Unfortunately, this term is not defined in any of the British English
>> dictionaries that I've found online, or in reliable American English
>> dictionaries. The only online dictionary definitions I found were:
>>
>> "The practice of combining forestry and grazing of domesticated
>> animals" in "yourdictionary.com" and "glosbe.com" - both are the same.
>>
>> The cited wikipedia article links to the USDA (United States
>> Department of Agriculture), which has a whole "Agroforestry" section
>> (another buzzword...), which says:
>>
>> "Silvopasture is the deliberate integration of trees and grazing
>> livestock operations on the same land. These systems are intensively
>> managed for both forest products and forage, providing both short- and
>> long-term income sources."
>> https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/practices/silvopasture.php
>>
>> So it seems that USDA's definition agrees with what I wrote before:
>> it's for grazing and forest products, not food production in an
>> orchard. Thus "silvopasture" is not a good term to use for places that
>> combine orchards with pasture or meadow; it's likely to cause
>> confusion.
>>
>> The lack of definitions in common dictionaries (and in Google
>> Translate) will also make it hard to find equivalents in other
>> languages.
>>
>> - Joseph
>>
>> On 9/19/19, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:47, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for
>> >> grazing.
>> >>
>> >
>> > From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture:
>> >
>> > Silvopasture is compatible with fruit, nut, and timber production.
>> Grazing
>> > can serve as a cost-effective vegetation and weed control method.
>> > Silvopasture can also help reduce pests and disease in orchards - when
>> > introduced into an orchard after harvest, livestock are able to consume
>> > unharvested fruits, preventing pests and diseases from spreading via
>> these
>> > unharvested fruits and in some cases consuming the pests themselves
>> >
>> >
>> > That means that the trees are used to produce for forestry products:
>> >> usually wood or timber, sometimes bark, sap, or other non-food
>> >> products.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Or fruit.  Or nuts.  As per the Wikipedia article.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Orchards produce food: usually fruits like bananas, coconuts or
>> >> oranges,
>> >> but also tea leaves, coffee beans, and fruits used for oil like olives
>> >> and
>> >> oil palms. (According to current osm usage)
>> >>
>> >
>> > See Wikipedia article, and above quotation from it.  Silvopasture
>> includes
>> > orchards and other food
>> > trees.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Paul
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>