[Talk-GB] Tagging overlapping areas using the same landcover

SK53 sk53.osm at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 16:53:42 UTC 2014

There are a number of associated issues, such as named and/or numbered
compartments in woods & forests; and a named wood with different types of
trees. I asked a question
OSM Help about such things a while back, and some ideas were discussed
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Section>on the wiki
ages ago.

In the recent past I visited Bradfield Woods, which could be tagged as a
nature reserve. This consists of two named woods each of which in turn has
many named coppice compartments. All of the names will be old because the
documented history of coppicing in these woods goes back to the 13th

I think in summary no existing tagging scheme handles these types of
nestings of woodlands. I believe that it is a more widespread and generic
issue. It can either be addressed on a case-by-case basis: for instance
building_part and cemetery_sector or we can search for a more universal way
of handling this sort of thing. (Other examples include lakes containing
named bays, archipelagos with individually named islands, mountains where
the peaks have different names (Buchaille Etive Mor comes to mind),
mountain ranges and so on).


On 9 October 2014 17:34, Andy Street <andy at street.me.uk> wrote:

> I've recently been thinking about how to map areas such as the Forest of
> Bere[1] which is an area of woodland comprised of smaller sections each
> with their own name. Ideally I think that the forest should be mapped
> as a separate entity so that a search for "Forest of Bere" would
> return the whole area whilst "Upperford Copse" would return only the
> relevant bit.
> My initial thoughts were to create a multipolygon (natural=wood,
> name=Forest of Bere, ...) using the outline of the smaller areas but
> while I'm perfectly happy to overlap landuse (military, park, school,
> golf course, etc.) with landcover (woods, water, etc.) I'm not so sure
> that overlapping landcover with landcover is such a good idea. There is
> also a complicating factor in the form of several woodland clearings
> which are currently unmapped. If you speak to people on the ground they
> generally consider such areas to be "in the forest" despite the lack of
> trees. Perhaps place=locality or place=forest would be a better fit?
> Has anyone dealt with a similar issue? I'm hoping that someone will
> help me see the wood for the trees!
> [1] http://osm.org/go/euoc4tP5--
> --
> Regards,
> Andy Street
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20141009/fa70b586/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list