[Talk-GB] Mapping of Kielder Forest(s)

[Edward Bainton]

> I suspect the better we cater for people who haven't heard of
openstreetmap the more we'll build our pool of editors.
+1000. I think we always need to work against the tendency to speak in
terms only the cognoscenti understand. (Which is not to say there won't be
specialist areas, as in anything. Just that whenever we have the choice to
drop the barriers to entry, we should.)

So to the point...

I could see the fine distinction between landuse=forestry and
landuse=forest getting lost on many of those novices, besides the
2-character difference.

Might landuse=managed_forestry, or even better,
landuse=managed_forestry_area make the distinction more explict?

On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 22:32, Tom Crocker <tomcrockermail at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, 14:24 Andy Townsend, <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/2021 20:34, Tom Crocker wrote:
>> >
>> > Andy, thanks for the suggestion of landuse=forestry for the bigger
>> > area. I'm convinced but I imagine until carto, osmand, etc can at
>> > least render the name Russ isn't going to want to use this, and using
>> > landuse=forest will blot out all of the gaps and cause confusion I
>> guess.
>>
>> I did add support for landuse=forestry to the map style that I look
>> after, <snip> landuse=forest is treated the same way, and names on either
>> of those (or
>
> natural=wood) are rendered.
>
>
> And I like it.
>
> OSM Carto won't ever support it
>
>
> Fair enough. You'll have a much better idea of this than me.
>
>  You
>> can point OsmAnd at any tiles you want, so at least when online that's
>> not an issue.
>>
>
> Yes, and I'm grateful to be able to point at your tiles as I do. But many
> won't and I suspect the better we cater for people who haven't heard of
> openstreetmap the more we'll build our pool of editors.
>
> > Perhaps a halfway house would be landuse=forest and introduce cutlines
>> > between the gaps... Render the name and the cutlines and be ready to
>> > switch to landuse=forestry if/when the time comes, but it's more work
>> > and objects.
>>
>> While mapping cutlines where they exist is a perfectly good idea, lots
>> of stands of trees (at least in Yorkshire) are separated by more than a
>> simple cutline.  Mapping "where there are currently trees" and "where
>> there is a managed forest" separately makes sense to me (and to my eyes
>> is much less like "micromapping" than mapping detail like house numbers
>> etc.!).
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear and think we're broadly agreeing
> (although it's fine if I've misunderstood and people still think it's a bad
> idea!). I was suggesting mapping where there are currently trees, where
> there's managed forest, but also where there's cutlines. So, specifically
> in Kielder, I would change the existing landuse=forest areas to
> natural=wood. Add named areas of forest with landuse=forest but also add
> cutlines between the natural=wood areas when there's a narrow, relatively
> consistent gap - there's quite a lot of these in Kielder. Add areas of
> grass, heath, wetland, etc elsewhere (James, I don't know if you're aware
> of JOSM's balloon tool which makes this pretty easy?).
>
>
> James Derrick wrote:
>>
> Sketching an arboreal equivalent...
>>         natural=tree    (specimens only - unless _really_ keen!)
>>         landuse=forest  (possibly include natural=wood?)
>>                         (manmade=cutline if unmapped and linear?)
>>         landuse=forestry
>>
> Personally I would use natural=wood regardless of it being kind-of
> man-made as it's explicitly about trees (just like it's only
> natural=tree,cliff...). Then, while I'd like to use landuse=forestry as an
> explicit "managed area that may or may not have trees", I was thinking use
> landuse=forest for now so it works for most current consumers.
>
> Best regards
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210903/50665d8c/attachment.htm>