[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Dave F]

On 29/10/2017 21:42, Warin wrote:
>
> 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..

Irrelevant, it could also be removed if it were landuse=forest.

> 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.

Again, could be the same for landuse=forest.

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

Why?

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

Why?! They're the /same/ thing.

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

To repeat, they're the same entity.

>
> 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',

Forest does *not* mean 'managed'. Never has, never will.


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

It's been "frequently" misused. Most have used it without any 
understanding it's implied meaning.

As I indicated before Approach 2 is most appropriate.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest

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