[Tagging] Deprecation of landuse=forest
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Apr 12 08:33:49 UTC 2021
On 12/4/21 2:54 am, David Marchal via Tagging wrote:
> Le dimanche, 11. avril 2021 18:34, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> 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.
> Nor can I, as there is no way to ask all contributors. The habits of some would need to evolve, of course, but it seems that this 75% approval rule is made for that: to tell mappers "Hey, a bunch of people meeted, and widely agreed that X should be done!", inciting them to do X. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that most people will agree on the confusion around this issue, and that things should evolve to remove this confusion.
>> 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.
> I would have preferred such a solution and wanted to do that at a first, but how would you prevent such tagging migration to stall in-between and, in the end, having merely a seventh approach to forests in addition of the six already existing? This approach has, AFAIK, already been attempted, and fail. If you see a different path that can be tried to make it happen and finally solve the mess, I would love to know it, because I don't understand how to do it.
I have been quietly adding produce=timber to those that I know are for the production of timber. If it does not get used for some human productive use then it is not a 'landuse'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging