[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Warin]

On 02-Nov-17 08:49 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/11/17 09:13, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>>> IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many
>>> times, <...>
>>    And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right ->
>> everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this topic is not
>> settled for so many years -> I suggest doing a compromise and agreeing
>> on ONE tag.
>>    (Compromise is currently done on rendering/data extraction side.
>> Nobody cares there about natural/landuse/landcover whatever. It's one
>> forest and that is it)
>>
>>    The only other way is to use de facto situation - natural=wood and
>> landuse=forest - and forget this discussion.
> In terms of topology, the idea from some that 'landuse' only applies to
> land that is 'used' for something implies that large areas of the planet
> are 'unused'?

Or unmapped for human use.

Given that the tag landuse may not have a good value for what the mapper thinks the area is used for,

or they think a different tag ... such as used for a National Park is all that is needed to describe the land use so they leave the tag landuse off.
So I think rather than 'unused' they are 'unmapped' and/or the definition of 'use' has not included all the possible tags that could be interpreted to be human use.

> A single layer of areas defining the current 'landcover'
> should be something that is managed even if that includes 'wood-managed'
> and 'wood-unmanaged'. The current historic situation has never been
> right but then so have other long-standing compromises in tagging.
>
>> P.S. And all I wanted was to talk about topology rules... BTW: here is
>> an example of topology rules in Lithuania:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Lithuania/Topology_rules
> In terms of the UK, Land Use and Land Cover is well defined with a set
> of clear classifications
> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-land-use-database-land-use-and-land-cover-classification
> except they are not really THAT clear. In your rules #2 and #5 seem to
> be at odds? and in the UK classifications, just how do you define the
> wooded areas of a park ... which may or may not be 'managed' ... and are
> combined with 'grassland' and other natural or managed landcover. We can
> define landuse=park, but that park can have a lot of detail contained
> within it ... We are looking to render blocks of trees, grass, and other
> objects how ever created?

A botanic Garden contains lots of different plants, including grass for the ones I have been to.
Mapping each individual plant with its species and genus ... no thanks.
I did map one tree though, just to be inconsistent. :)