[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Warin]

On 30-Oct-17 10:23 PM, Dave F wrote:
>
> 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.

But it should not be removed ... the ground truth remains as the landuse 
remains the same.

Where are the ground truth of the presence of trees changes.
>
>> 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.
Again ... the ground truth remains as the landuse remains the same, so 
it should not be removed.

Where are the ground truth of the presence of trees changes
>
>>
>> At the moment landuse is a separate main tag and is not subservient 
>> to another tag. That should remain.
>
> Why?
landuse=residential .. to be made subservient to??
landuse=commercial .. to be made subservient to??
landuse=industrial .. to be made subservient to??
landuse=agriculture .. to be made subservient to??
>
>>
>>
>> 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.

No they are NOT!

One marks the USE of the land.
The other marks the COVER of the land.

They are different things entirely.
>
>>
>> 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. 
See above.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
Yet OSM mappers take it to be so .. possibly because of the OSMwiki 
words on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest ! 'Managed' all over 
the place.
>
>
>> 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.
Implied meanings can be taken in any direction by those doing the 
implication. The 'implication' needs to be stated to be clear as to the 
meaning taken.
>
> As I indicated before Approach 2 is most appropriate.

And that is (having been trimmed out)
B)
depreciate landuse=forest and introduce a clearly defined 
landuse=forestry that only includes tree areas that produce base 
material for human use.



Leaving the natural=wood problems of not being used for 'managed' and/or 
'not natural'  what solution do you prefer?

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

B) ? something else?


> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest

That page just perpetuates the misuse of landuse=forest.
It does not advise the novice of how to tag a tree area but leaves the 
decision up to them .. that is not good educational practice!
It should at the very beginning state how to tag a tree area ... managed 
or not, natural or not, used to produce something or not. Just a simple 
statement.