[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 08:45:19 UTC 2017


2017-11-02 8:14 GMT+01:00 Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com>:

> Currently according to taginfo the most popular are:
> natural=wood 4,5M
> landuse=forest 3,5M
> others are way behind. for example landcover=trees - 11000 objects...
>
> So maybe there is a point to choose one of the two popular tags and be
> done with it?
>
>

IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many
times, "landuse" is about the human use of land. "natural=wood" reads as
"is a wood". Many trees don't grow in a wood but along streets, in small
groups that aren't woods, in gardens, etc. The main reason natural=wood
4,5M and landuse=forest 3,5M are used much more than any other tag is
existing rendering rules in OSM carto and presets. As this topic is popping
up frequently since at least 10 years, I guess there is some problem with
the established tagging, hence looking at the naked numbers doesn't bring
us further. If you look at the actual objects that have these tags, you'll
find that many are neither "wood"s nor "forest"s according to any
definition. They are simply groups of trees or areas covered with trees. A
forest and also a wood are more than just trees, they are also implying an
ecosystem, microclima, etc.


> If anybody wants more detail - subtags could be used: wood=xxx or
> forest=xxx depending on which one is chosen? Editors would remove
> other tags from presets, changes will be done in the database and then
> rendering and data extraction could be simplified.
>


what is the "thing" you want to tag with the tag to be chosen (what are the
basic characteristics, that are implied by the main tag)? Trees growing
there? A forest?

There's also still the problem with names: typically any bigger forest with
a name has smaller parts with their own names, which again have smaller
parts with their own names, etc.
It doesn't (IMHO) make sense to have nested same value landuses. The
solution could be either "natural" objects or place objects (or yet another
new key).
In any bigger (named) forest you will also typically find areas which are
by common interpretation part of the forest (e.g. clearings, lakes) but
aren't actually tree covered (again an argument against landcover).

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171102/7b8fe6de/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list