[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 10:34:35 UTC 2017


On 02-Nov-17 09:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/11/17 09:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> ONE tag to say what? You are still owing an answer to this.
> I think the problem is similar to the multiple areas problem. There are
> several layers of complexity so should landuse=residential enclose the
> whole area including the grass and wooded areas or should they all be
> isolated areas? Adding leisure=park within landuse=residential area just
> makes things even more difficult? Just what is a small area of trees?
> within the leisure=park or landuse=forest because it's not a
> natural=wood 'creation' ... it's something the planning authorities have
> requested as perhaps a barrier or simply as an amenity ... or has been
> preserved as it has been there for hundreds of years ...
>
> We need to build a proper hierarchy of LANDUSE into which more detail
> can be added if required?
>
If you want to tag the presence of trees then it is a land cover you 
want, not a land use.

The difference between a large group of trees compared to a smaller group?

What next - the difference between a large group of houses and a smaller 
group?



landuse=forest does not mean there are trees there all the time, they 
could be logged and later replanted.

With landuse=residential there are no sub tags to indicate the kind of 
houses there or apartment blocks, colours, height etc.

If you want that kind of detail then map the physical houses with that 
detail.

You could do the same with trees .. map each one with its height, 
species and genus .. I'll leave that to others...






More information about the talk mailing list