[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Warin]

On 30-Oct-17 01:16 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 27.10.2017 00:49, Dave F wrote:
>> The woods/forest problem is one of the worst tagging cock-ups in OSM.
> Indeed. The current mess is especially disappointing because it hasn't
> always been that way: The status quo is the result of an attempt to
> "improve" the tagging years ago.
>
>  From my point of view, it's plainly obvious that there should be only
> one main tag instead of two.
>
> Details on whether the area is used for forestry, whether it is in a
> "natural" state (whatever that means), or other such information can be
> gathered in addition to that main tag. Gathering that secondary
> information should not be a requirement for being able to map the
> forest/wood in the first place.
>
>> all areas of trees should
>> be primarily tagged as natural=wood. As with other entities, any further
>> details which gives clarity should be provided in sub-tags.
> That would work nicely as far as I'm concerned.
>

And then when the trees are harvested in a forestry operation the tag natural=wood could be removed with the result that the land use would be lost..
until such time as the tress grow again then the natural=wood could be reintroduced, but then the land use would have to be rediscovered and then retagged.

At the moment landuse is a separate main tag and is not subservient to another tag. That should remain.

I see that some might see a necessity of tagging tree areas with both landuse=forest and natural=wood.

However the one does not imply the other, to the extend that I only tag the landuse=forest and leave off the natural=wood.

Then there may be others who see natural=wood and think that their area of trees are not natural by their definition so falsely use landuse=foresty under the impression that any tree are that is 'managed' is suitable for landuse=forest.

Solutions?

For the landuse=forest problem?

A) ?
Change the definition of landuse=forest to exclude the word 'managed',
  emphasise the use for the production of goods for human use
e.g. the base material for the production of paper, guitars, floor boards,furniture, house frames etc

Some will object to the change of meaning of such a 'frequently used tag', no mater how confusing it may be.

B) ?
Alternative - depreciate landuse=forest and introduce a clearly defined landuse=forestry that only includes tree areas that produce base material for human use.

C) ? others

For the natural=wood problem?

A) ?
Depreciate natural=wood and introduce landcover=trees.

B) ?