[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Lester Caine]

On 02/11/17 10:34, Warin wrote:
> 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.
Rather than natural= ? ... My point was that there should be an agreed
non-overlaping set of landuse=tags ... landuse=agricultural for areas
between landuse=residential or landuse=industrial where appropriate with
the farm builds, yards, orchards, coppices, and other detail secondary
tags to the landuse one ... rather than having to define every field
with it's own landuse tag.

Actually ... how difficult would it be to identify areas that don't have
a boundary around them? I have always though it would be useful if one
could fill in the gaps between things like landuse= areas.

> The difference between a large group of trees compared to a smaller group?
Size of the area is not relevant ...
But adding landcover=trees inside landuse=residential is perhaps a
better solution? But should a large park outside a residential area
still be tagged leisure=park? To fill in the landuse coverage it should
perhaps be landuse=park ... with wooded areas tagged within it.

> What next - the difference between a large group of houses and a smaller
> group?
We can accurately every building cleanly that is not a problem! It's
adding the other details of the development which is ... somewhat hit
and miss?

> 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...
Actually the plans for the current local developments HAVE all of that
detail. Not that I expect them to actually follow the signed off plans
on the ground ;) But it does define the areas of the developments that
are not covered with buildings, highway elements, private gardens and
fencing. But again for consistency should the whole area be re-tagged
residential from farmland, or the preserved wooded areas inside the
development be tagged differently?

One of the developments south of here has individual trees that have to
be protected but they are less of a problem since they are individual
objects.

-- 
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
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk