[OSM-talk] xybot

Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Fri Apr 10 12:02:03 BST 2009


Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:31:46AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
>> It is correct to discuss.
>> There SHOULD be a landuse tag for every area as far as I am concerned, 
>> and since landuse=forest is for managed wooded areas, it is incorrect to 
>> use that for unmanaged areas. So perhaps we just need to CORRECT the 
>> land use page to include unmanaged woodland in some way?
>> Having a mixture of 'natural' AND 'landuse' seems to be the basic 
>> problem .... so none of the proposed fixes is correct! These areas ARE 
>> landuse=wood
> 
> Currently landuse does not list a wood but only a forest and says
> explicitly:
> 
> "For areas of land used by people. For natural areas, see Key:natural. "
> 
> So it should be natural=wood not landuse=wood.
> 
> As you say - its an unmanaged forest so its not people usage so landuse
> is the wrong tag.

BOTH are wrong ... which is my point ...
Woods around here ARE used by people - many HAVE been created, but they 
are unmanaged in the conventional 'forestry' manor.

What I am 'objecting to' is the arbitrary distinction of an area being 
'used' or 'unused' as implied by the split between landuse and natural. 
  In the UK woods are most definitely used which requires that they have 
a landuse tag as it is currently defined - designating them as 'unused' 
via a 'natural tag is what is wrong?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php




More information about the talk mailing list