[Tagging] Deprecation of landuse=forest (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations)
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Apr 19 08:41:08 UTC 2021
On 15/4/21 8:34 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mi., 14. Apr. 2021 um 18:20 Uhr schrieb Bert -Araali- Van
> Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
> <mailto:bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>>:Very true, happy you
> mention and confirm it. However, that is not how it is used by
> many mappers. We see whole villages and cities mapped as
> landuse=residential, not a big deal since you can easily define
> inner areas with different landuse, perfectly viable and correct
> although complex due to growing number of inner areas when we go
> into more detail.
> while I personally don't do it and believe it is not a helpful
> approach in general if you want progress in landuse mapping, it can be
> seen as rough and approximate way of landuse mapping that can be later
> refined. Adding more complexity by adding inners is one possibility,
> but I have seen that it leads to problems because as people add more
> detail it becomes ever more complex, and ultimately you end up with
> the constructs either broken, or at least many less experienced
> mappers are shying away because of the complexity.
> My suggestion is to do it the other way round: start puzzling many
> small, self contained landuse pieces together, leave the roads out
> (stop a property lines), and you will receive an easy to maintain,
> improve and refine, stable (geometry-error wise) structure with low
> complexity. If drawing the single blocks seems too much work, at least
> start by leaving arterial roads, railroads and waterways out.
> It becomes different however when the landuse tag is used on a
> macro scale to map areas which refer to the "management" of the
> area, not the actual landuse. This is the case for f.i. refugee
> camps (very large in many cases with a variety of landuses inside
> them), mapped and tagged as landuse=residential,
> while they could be seen as residential landuse, there should be a
> feature tag for a refugee camp (I think there is already). Just
> landuse=residential clearly isn't sufficient.
> and for our case here landuse=forest. Creating inner areas with
> different landuse explicitly excludes them from the management
> philosophy. The only viable solution for that seems to me a boundary.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but also in countries where the
> landuse=forest is heavily used, is it mapped on areas that are no
> longer covered with trees, the trees are cut or as in the proposal
> areas with ponds, some agriculural use, some small villages ?
> typically landuse=forest is added to (any) area of trees, but not when
> they are cut or when there are different features like ponds, lakes,
> meadows. These are not included.
Typical in your area. In my area * State Forest are designated areas
that can and do include areas without trees (e.g. camp grounds, huts,
buildings, water bodies, etc).
These are all part of the area used to produce timber and as a landuse
the best fit is landuse=forest so far.
To me landuse=forest is for the human use of the land .. it does not say
'here be trees'. So the landuse does not change where trees have been
havested, it remains the same landuse.
For tree areas there is nothing wrong with useing natural=wood.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging