[talk-au] Basic question

[Warin]

On 8/10/21 17:41, Andrew & Ingrid Parker wrote:
> Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area 
> inside or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to 
> what I had been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I 
> misunderstood what they were saying.


Usually the last part - "misunderstood what they were saying" is the 
largest part of the problem.


My take;

  landuse=forest does not denote trees but the human use of the land to 
get timber.

natural=wood = trees exist here! Note 'natural' does not, in OSM terms' 
exclude human intervention. So if it is planted, maintained, etc by 
humans then it is still ok to tag 'natural=wood'.


An example is where a tree area overlaps both a state forest and farm 
land. The tree area can be drawn as one area. While the farm and state 
forest can be separate areas overlapped by the tree area.


What you should not do is overlap areas of land covers such as grass and 
trees, or sand and trees. And similarly for land use - farm and 
industrial for example.


> Cheers
> Andrew Parker
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary <osm at 97k.com> wrote:
>
>
>         Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries
>         such as state parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate
>         from natural features such as water, waterways, woods etc. 
>         While they sometimes approximate, they rarely coincide exactly.
>
>         Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate
>         because there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that
>         are unwooded.  Best to map the park with its official boundary
>         and then map the natural features separately using other
>         unofficial sources such as survey and satellite imagery.
>
>
>     Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
>     natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct,
>     but eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate
>     natural=wood is the way to go.
>

In some parts it has been applied where trees <70%... It was done when 
national parks had no rendering .. tagging for the render. Today I think 
the ktree tags should be removed from all admin boundaries.. but that is 
just me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220509/84ad172a/attachment.htm>