[Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Sun May 12 12:04:14 UTC 2013
I do agree with Mike Thompson's statement: "If neither of the two
tags being discussed (landuse=forest, natural=wood) are appropriate
for tagging a generic area covered by trees (regardless if it is
"virgin", "managed"), it would be really helpful to have a tag that
could be used for this (i.e. indicate what the *landcover* is). This
information is useful when navigating the back country." Yet, I
I feel that
landuse cannot be made to mean landcover (because that concept doesn't
natural= can perhaps be a subset of landcover, but it's awkward
because of landuse
So, I'd like to see a
tag, and to have a set of definitions based on a landcover schema that
has been established via peer review in professional geography.
Given that, one can define 'natural=wood' to be a shorthand for
landcover=trees or whatever it turns out to be.
In landuse=retail and residential, we use buildings, parking lots,
roads, ball fields, etc. to show landcover, sort of.
Somewhat separately, there's a related tension in the default render.
USGS topo maps (that I often look to for example), show landcover with
tints, basically. The default mapnik render (and mkgmap versions)
shows landuse with tints. That's ok, but I think it's at best very
challenging to get a render that shows both landuse and landcover in a
way that makes everyone happy. Perhaps crosshatcing for use, and color
for cover, at least in the conservation/forestry and
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Talk-us