[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Dave F]

You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing 
OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.

*All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary 
tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.

DaveF

On 27/10/2017 08:52, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will
> not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc),
> because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have
> tags F1 and F2.
>
> F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale
> maps (full country/region).
>
> F2 is for small wooded areas INSIDE other polygons, usually inside
> residential, commercial, industrial zones.
>
> This approach ignores utility as such (managed, non managed, natural,
> left for full nature cycles as mention in Oleksiy's post). This
> information could be added as a sub-tag if needed for some thematic
> maps or specific statistical calculations.
>
> What I'm saying is that maybe we should:
> 1. first decide the PURPOSES of having "tree cluster" polygons tagged
> separately.
> 2. Then PRIORITISE the purposes (based on ACTUAL usage ignoring all
> "it could theoretically be used to/for...")
> 3. and then decide which info goes to primary tag, which goes to
> secondary tag(s).
> 4. And only THEN decide on actual tags (keys, values).
> Doing it the other way round will take us back to this forest
> discussion as it has been here for the last ten years like discussing
> what the words "forest", "wood", "natural", "landuse", "landcover"
> etc. actually mean.
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus