[Talk-ca] Parc Summit Montréal

Adam Martin s.adam.martin at gmail.com
Sat Jan 11 00:34:41 UTC 2014


Good point. I've seen the discussion relating to the use of the forest
landuse tag and the wood natural tag. It does just boil down to the mappers
preference. My answer was based on my use ... there are no wrong answers,
of course.
On Jan 10, 2014 8:26 PM, "Paul Norman" <penorman at mac.com> wrote:

> Both landuse=forest and natural=wood may be used to indicate an area with
> trees. There are differing views about what the tags mean, so it is
> possible for one person to sensibly use landuse=forest to map something
> while a different person would use natural=wood to map that exact same
> thing.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.martin at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2014 11:19 AM
> *To:* Simon Mercier
> *Cc:* talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Parc Summit Montréal
>
>
>
> Bonjour Simon!
>
> Forgive my lack of ability in writing french - hopefully it won't make a
> difference. Took a look at the area that you are referring to. The area
> that is designated as the park is a "Forest" while the other overlapping
> area is designated as "Wood". From looking over the maps provided by the
> City of Montreal (http://www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/carte/en/index.sn), it
> would appear that the overlap is incidental - the park area includes much
> of the green space boxed in by the road and administrative boundary, but
> not all of it. In fact, the park is separated from the administrative
> boundary by a small gap. It appears that it should actually be connected to
> that boundary.
>
> The use of "Forest" is odd - this is a designated park and would likely be
> better suited to be noted as amenity=park. It is arguable that "Forest" is
> not the predominate use for the area as that tag tends to be used for areas
> that are managed by humans for the purposes of harvesting. Is having the
> landuse here actually necessary? Using the amenity tag for a park appears
> to override the Forest tag with the actual use of the land (for
> recreational purposes).
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> 2014/1/10 Simon Mercier <smercier at mapgears.com>
>
>
> Bonjour
>
> Je me demande s'il s'agit d'une erreur ou simplement "circonstanciel"?
>  Est-ce qu'il s'agit pour un d'une limite "administrative" de parc
> (20187021) et l'autre de la forêt(189610345)?    Ça me semble tout de même
> ambigu!
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/189610345
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20187021
>
> merci
>
>
>
> --
> simon mercier
> co-fondateur solutions mapgears
> 2383 che ste-Foy bur 202 québec, qc
> canada G1V1T1
>
> t_418_476_7139#101
> m_418_559_7139
> simonmercier.net / mapgears.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20140110/456cccbf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-ca mailing list