[Tagging] Deprecation of landuse=forest (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations)

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sun Apr 11 16:34:07 UTC 2021

I agree with this observation. Deprecation of landuse=forest is not
necessary for the mapping of forest boundaries. It is an additional goal of
the proposal, but presented as if it were necessary.
Though I agree that a move to natural=wood for all wooded areas would be
beneficial, there is a big if: if it is supported by a majority, not of
mailing list members but of mappers. I do not see such a majority.
I think at most a recommendation to move landuse=forest to natural=wood,
pointing out the benefits,  would be in order. Once a movement/trend
begins, you can estimate the growing support, and maybe at some point in
time deprecation would be in order.

Peter Elderson

Op zo 11 apr. 2021 om 17:47 schreef Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> Hi,
> I have looked at this for the first time today.
> Before, judging from the subject line, I thought: Ok, someone wants to
> map some forest details, I'm fine with that.
> Now I find out that instead someone wants to deprecate landuse=forest
> which is used over half a million times in my country - basically for
> anything that has trees on it but is not completely unmanaged.
> It was certainly not the intention of the original author, but I do feel
> a little tricked here. Saying clearly that you want to get rid of
> landuse=forest would have made me look at this more closely!
> I have now voted against the proposal. In my eyes, mapping boundaries
> (and sub-boundaries) of managed forests is a niche interest. For me as a
> non-forestry-expert, I'm mainly interested in where trees are and where
> no trees are. I don't care much for whether an area is theoretically
> under forestry management or not. There is room in OSM for niche
> interests, I have no problem with that, but I won't let a niche interest
> tell me that half a million forests in Germany need to be re-tagged now
> (and possibly even with some fuzziness along the borders, like "uh the
> managed area ends here, yes there are still trees after that but those
> are not part of the forestry area" and stuff like that).
> I'm sorry for not chiming in earlier, I would have if the subject had
> told me that the plan is to get rid of landuse=forest altogether.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations
> Bye
> Frederik
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210411/69108fc7/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list