[talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

[Warin]

On 17/12/2015 8:35 AM, Ben Kelley wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I thought natural=wood was for trees that had not been planted for the 
> purpose of forestry.
>
> landuse=forest is where they were planted for forestry.
>
+1
>
> Use is not consistent.
>
Situation normal.
>
> (If you harvest the natural trees, which one is it?)
>

forestry.
>
> See the Forest page on the wiki,
>


> but landcover=trees seems incorrect.
>

Why?

I would take it that the area is covered in trees.
What human purpose they are put to is not specified by the landcover tag.

>   - Ben.
>
> On Dec 17, 2015 8:25 AM, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi ...
>     I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and
>     came across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
>     Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area
>     includes National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
>     Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes
>     National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
>     Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area
>     includes National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
>
>     They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2
>     changesets- no response so far.
>
>     They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as
>     such I think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees,
>     source=imagery" with no name nor other identifying tags. They are
>     all much much larger than their name would suggest.
>
>     The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has
>     tag 'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest
>     that has pine trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ...
>     it is hair splitting but I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)
>
>     The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to
>     suppress its rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to
>     over write it. I am tempted to use the same tagging method on all
>     three ways.
>
>     Comments please?
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-au mailing list
>     Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20151217/d3710d5e/attachment.html>