Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Hi!
Daniel, from Spain.
Thank you very much for your comments. I didn't know much about "dehesas"
and I'm learning by reading your comments on this mailing list and on the
wiki [1]. (I also didn't know the tag "landuse=meadow_orchard".
Interesting!)
A "dehesa" is not a "landuse=farmland". Nor is it a "landuse=forest" or a
"landuse=meadow". On the ground, they don't look like one thing or the
other. They are a curious combination of pastureland and Mediterranean
forest. I think this type of land use is specific enough and needs to be
specifically tagged. Of course, I don't think "landuse=dehesa" is
appropriate. It would be too specific, too local.
I think the generic (not specific) value for this type of land use could be
"landuse=agroforestry": "Agroforestry is a land use management system in
which trees or shrubs are grown around or among crops or pastureland." [2]
It could be combined with "landuse=agroforestry" + "agroforestry=dehesa", or
"landuse=agroforestry" + "agroforestry:type=dehesa" to indicate the specific
local modality. Which option would be better? (You probably have more
experience at this point than I do.)
Thanks to Diego for this proposal. Some time ago, the Spanish community
discussed how to map a "dehesa". The conclusion was... No idea! There are no
suitable tags! As I told you at the beginning, I don't know much about this
subject and I don't have a well-defined opinion (I don't know what the best
solution is). This comment is rather the impression I get after reading all
your comments.
I think that this proposal could be used not only to solve the question of
how to map a "dehesa" but also to create a new land use
("landuse=agroforestry" or another one) that offers a solution both for
mapping "dehesas" and for mapping other similar land uses under a common
tagging scheme.
Thank you again for your comments. I'll continue reading to you.
Greetings from Spain.
Regards,
Daniel
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Dehesa
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
On 4/9/19 12:48 am, Diego Cruz wrote: Does anybody know about other areas in the world where there is an extensive mixed use of territory? Way: Woomera Prohibited Area - Defence Infrequent Zone (544274312) Some of this area is also 'used' for cattle grazing... by farmers. The farms have shelters for times when there are missile flights. 'Tourists' are allowed in the area .. but only when there are no scheduled missile flights, and then they have to get permission from the farmers. Note - all natural pasture, no tilling etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:49, Diego Cruz wrote: > > I don't know the existence of this type of mixed usage of land in other > parts of the world, but I don't mind dropping the Spanish name in favour of > a universal concept, such as landuse=agrosylvopastoral (which would be the > most accurate so far). However, it is true that it wouldn't be intuitive to > non-native English speakers in other parts of the world where a mixed > system is in use, > It's not intuitive to English speakers, either. They may recognise the "agro" and "pastoral" parts but few would know "silvo" derives from the Latin for "wood" or "forest" (as do the names Sylvester" and "Sylvia)." > and consequently they may choose to use a local name instead. How would > agrosylvopastoral sound to native English speakers? > Well, if it's documented in the wiki, some people would find it that way. They look through landuse hoping to find something that matches what they want to map, or something that is close enough. Some editors allow synonyms when searching for suitable tags so, if you ask them, they may make it so that if you search for dehesa or montado it will offer you landuse=agrosylvopastoral. Does anybody know about other areas in the world where there is an > extensive mixed use of territory? > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture which is quite widespread. I can't see any great distinction between silvopasture and agrosylvopastoral, but I'm not a horny-handed son of the soil and the closest I get to farming is looking at it as I go past on the bus. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Am Di., 3. Sept. 2019 um 17:22 Uhr schrieb Diego Cruz : > How about landuse=mixed_rural? Would that be useful to areas you know > about? > no, it would not allow to tell anything and would be completely unclear. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Hi again, How about landuse=mixed_rural? Would that be useful to areas you know about? Best regards Diego El mar., 3 sept. 2019 a las 16:48, Diego Cruz () escribió: > Hi everybody, > > Thank you for your replies! > > I'm not so happy about the idea of having three different landuse tags > that in most cases will be rendered incorrectly. Besides, how can you know > what is the main use and what is the secondary one? The thing is that this > is a mixed system, and in Spain and Portugal it covers tens of thousands of > hectares. > > I don't know the existence of this type of mixed usage of land in other > parts of the world, but I don't mind dropping the Spanish name in favour of > a universal concept, such as landuse=agrosylvopastoral (which would be the > most accurate so far). However, it is true that it wouldn't be intuitive to > non-native English speakers in other parts of the world where a mixed > system is in use, and consequently they may choose to use a local name > instead. How would agrosylvopastoral sound to native English speakers? > > Does anybody know about other areas in the world where there is an > extensive mixed use of territory? > > Best regards > Diego > > El dom., 1 sept. 2019 a las 0:44, Paul Allen () > escribió: > >> On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 22:46, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I would not renounce from having dehesa somewhere in the value, if this >>> is an „English“ term and exactly what you want to tag. >>> >> >> It's not a term this Englishman has heard of. But there are a lot of >> specialist terms I've >> learned since I started mapping. So I did some googling. It doesn't >> appear to be a >> term in English. It seems to be something found in southern and central >> Spain, >> and also southern Portugal (where it's called a montado). See >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehesa >> >> The Wikipedia article suggests a possibility for a landuse tag: >> landuse=agrosylvopastoral. >> A bit of a mouthful, but perhaps gets around the objection to calling it >> agroforestry. An >> alternative found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture would be >> landuse=sylvopasture. >> Disadvantage of either of those is they may not be intuitively obvious. >> Advantage is we >> don't have to come up with subtags to define it. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Hi everybody, Thank you for your replies! I'm not so happy about the idea of having three different landuse tags that in most cases will be rendered incorrectly. Besides, how can you know what is the main use and what is the secondary one? The thing is that this is a mixed system, and in Spain and Portugal it covers tens of thousands of hectares. I don't know the existence of this type of mixed usage of land in other parts of the world, but I don't mind dropping the Spanish name in favour of a universal concept, such as landuse=agrosylvopastoral (which would be the most accurate so far). However, it is true that it wouldn't be intuitive to non-native English speakers in other parts of the world where a mixed system is in use, and consequently they may choose to use a local name instead. How would agrosylvopastoral sound to native English speakers? Does anybody know about other areas in the world where there is an extensive mixed use of territory? Best regards Diego El dom., 1 sept. 2019 a las 0:44, Paul Allen () escribió: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 22:46, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> I would not renounce from having dehesa somewhere in the value, if this >> is an „English“ term and exactly what you want to tag. >> > > It's not a term this Englishman has heard of. But there are a lot of > specialist terms I've > learned since I started mapping. So I did some googling. It doesn't > appear to be a > term in English. It seems to be something found in southern and central > Spain, > and also southern Portugal (where it's called a montado). See > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehesa > > The Wikipedia article suggests a possibility for a landuse tag: > landuse=agrosylvopastoral. > A bit of a mouthful, but perhaps gets around the objection to calling it > agroforestry. An > alternative found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture would be > landuse=sylvopasture. > Disadvantage of either of those is they may not be intuitively obvious. > Advantage is we > don't have to come up with subtags to define it. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 22:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I would not renounce from having dehesa somewhere in the value, if this is > an „English“ term and exactly what you want to tag. > It's not a term this Englishman has heard of. But there are a lot of specialist terms I've learned since I started mapping. So I did some googling. It doesn't appear to be a term in English. It seems to be something found in southern and central Spain, and also southern Portugal (where it's called a montado). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehesa The Wikipedia article suggests a possibility for a landuse tag: landuse=agrosylvopastoral. A bit of a mouthful, but perhaps gets around the objection to calling it agroforestry. An alternative found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture would be landuse=sylvopasture. Disadvantage of either of those is they may not be intuitively obvious. Advantage is we don't have to come up with subtags to define it. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
many years ago we were discussing meadow_orchard actually. I agree with Christoph that there is room for a secondary landuse tag like landuse:secondary it could otherwise be a subtag for forests, like landuse=forest forest=dehesa or forest=agroforestry agroforestry=dehesa I would not renounce from having dehesa somewhere in the value, if this is an „English“ term and exactly what you want to tag. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Re: "As for establishing two different landuse tags for the same territory, it could be fine for me, but I don't know if that would create rendering problems" It's not so much of a problem; renders could choose to just show the primary feature, or they could choose to interpret both tags. Since the primary features are already established tags, most renders will still show something (though only renders who interpret the secondary feature will get it perfect) The alternative, of having different tags for each combination, might actually be a little more complicated. You would need a meadow+forestry tag like dehesa or agroforestry, but also a meadow+orchard tag (landuse=meadow_orchard?), a cropland+forestry tag, cropland+orchard, orchard + forestry (e.g. shade-grown coffee), etc., and renders + other database users would have to look for each of these new feature tags. Also, when I hear "agroforestry" my first thought is "tree plantation?" and second would be "christmas tree farm?" - I don't immediately think "forestry mixed with agriculture", while I can pretty quickly figure out that landuse=meadow + landuse:secondary=forest is land that's used both for pasture and for wood. So I like the landuse:secondary=* and natural:secondary=* tags best. (But if that's too complicated, feel free to use what works best for your local community. Not every tag has to account for all possibilities.) - Joseph On 8/31/19, Diego Cruz wrote: > Hi Peter, > > A dehesa is not just a type of farmland, because the surface is covered by > trees that are regularly pruned and used for wood, so it is a mixed usage > of farmland and forestry (and pasture). > > Best regards > Diego > > El sáb., 31 ago. 2019 a las 12:47, Peter Elderson () > escribió: > >> It appears to be a specific type of farmland, so landuse=farmland + >> farmland=dehesa would say it all and disrupt nothing. >> >> Mvg Peter Elderson >> >> Op 31 aug. 2019 om 12:25 heeft Diego Cruz het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> Hi Cristoph, >> >> Thank you for your feedback, it's really appreciated. You are completely >> right when you say that dehesa might exclude similar environments in >> other >> parts of the world, and that is of course not my intention. I just used >> the >> word dehesa because it appears as such in Wikipedia. Among your three >> proposals, I would go with landuse=agroforestry, because it would be a >> way >> of reflecting this mixed usage of land without being too local. As for >> establishing two different landuse tags for the same territory, it could >> be >> fine for me, but I don't know if that would create rendering problems (as >> I >> mentioned, I'm new to this). I don't think this should be resolved with >> secondary tags, because a dehesa is an entity in itself and the uses of >> the >> land are not subordinated to each other. >> >> I will wait for more replies before modifying my proposal. >> >> Best regards >> Diego >> >> El vie., 30 ago. 2019 a las 12:00, Christoph Hormann () >> escribió: >> >>> On Friday 30 August 2019, Diego Cruz wrote: >>> > >>> > I have recently proposed a new tag in the Wiki, because none of the >>> > existing landuse tags seem to match it. A dehesa is a type of land >>> > that combines a forest with either fields or pasturelands (or both) >>> > at the same time. It is extensively used in the Iberian Peninsula, >>> > both in Spain and Portugal. Please see the details in my proposal >>> > below: >>> > >>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dehesa >>> >>> This is certainly a valid idea for inventing a new tag and it is good >>> that you open up discussion early. Let me take this as an example for >>> two things that have in the past been decisive on the broader success >>> of tags: >>> >>> * local verifiability. The primary definition of your tag is for areas >>> in a certain region that are in the cultural tradition of that region >>> called a certain way. You try to list a few verifiable criteria what >>> not to use the tag for - but these are one sided criteria. Because >>> natural=wood does not rule out use as pasture (and neither does >>> landuse=orchard, which is also used for cork oak plantations), >>> landuse=farmland does not rule out the presence of trees or the use as >>> pasture and many savannas (for which we have no specific tag at the >>> moment) are created by human influence. A good tag is one where a >>> local observer, even a casual one like a traveler quickly coming >>> through, can without much difficulty determine locally if the tag >>> applies or not. >>> >>> * generic meaning. As already mentioned you draft this as a region >>> specific tag although agroforestry is a practice that exists in many >>> different parts of the world in different forms. Such tag will either >>> stay a local speciality tag without much chance for being interpreted >>> by global data users and possibly mirrored by other region specific >>> tags with similar but slightly different meaning or
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Hi Peter, A dehesa is not just a type of farmland, because the surface is covered by trees that are regularly pruned and used for wood, so it is a mixed usage of farmland and forestry (and pasture). Best regards Diego El sáb., 31 ago. 2019 a las 12:47, Peter Elderson () escribió: > It appears to be a specific type of farmland, so landuse=farmland + > farmland=dehesa would say it all and disrupt nothing. > > Mvg Peter Elderson > > Op 31 aug. 2019 om 12:25 heeft Diego Cruz het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi Cristoph, > > Thank you for your feedback, it's really appreciated. You are completely > right when you say that dehesa might exclude similar environments in other > parts of the world, and that is of course not my intention. I just used the > word dehesa because it appears as such in Wikipedia. Among your three > proposals, I would go with landuse=agroforestry, because it would be a way > of reflecting this mixed usage of land without being too local. As for > establishing two different landuse tags for the same territory, it could be > fine for me, but I don't know if that would create rendering problems (as I > mentioned, I'm new to this). I don't think this should be resolved with > secondary tags, because a dehesa is an entity in itself and the uses of the > land are not subordinated to each other. > > I will wait for more replies before modifying my proposal. > > Best regards > Diego > > El vie., 30 ago. 2019 a las 12:00, Christoph Hormann () > escribió: > >> On Friday 30 August 2019, Diego Cruz wrote: >> > >> > I have recently proposed a new tag in the Wiki, because none of the >> > existing landuse tags seem to match it. A dehesa is a type of land >> > that combines a forest with either fields or pasturelands (or both) >> > at the same time. It is extensively used in the Iberian Peninsula, >> > both in Spain and Portugal. Please see the details in my proposal >> > below: >> > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dehesa >> >> This is certainly a valid idea for inventing a new tag and it is good >> that you open up discussion early. Let me take this as an example for >> two things that have in the past been decisive on the broader success >> of tags: >> >> * local verifiability. The primary definition of your tag is for areas >> in a certain region that are in the cultural tradition of that region >> called a certain way. You try to list a few verifiable criteria what >> not to use the tag for - but these are one sided criteria. Because >> natural=wood does not rule out use as pasture (and neither does >> landuse=orchard, which is also used for cork oak plantations), >> landuse=farmland does not rule out the presence of trees or the use as >> pasture and many savannas (for which we have no specific tag at the >> moment) are created by human influence. A good tag is one where a >> local observer, even a casual one like a traveler quickly coming >> through, can without much difficulty determine locally if the tag >> applies or not. >> >> * generic meaning. As already mentioned you draft this as a region >> specific tag although agroforestry is a practice that exists in many >> different parts of the world in different forms. Such tag will either >> stay a local speciality tag without much chance for being interpreted >> by global data users and possibly mirrored by other region specific >> tags with similar but slightly different meaning or it will morph into >> a broad umbrella tag - for example for any kind of 'area with trees >> that does not really qualify as wood/forest'. Well known examples for >> such tags are natural=fell and landuse=village_green. >> >> There are three potential tagging concepts i could imagine could be >> derived from your idea that would seem more promising in that regard: >> >> * a tag for agroforestry landuse. This of course would only be locally >> verifiable if there is active agricultural use. That would only >> qualify those dehesas that are actively used for agriculture as such. >> And it would say very little about the physical appearance and >> ecological characteristics of an area. >> >> * establishing a generic tagging concept for secondary characteristics >> of areas - like use of orchards as pasture, underbrush in a forest or >> scattered trees on a meadow. This could be quite easily implemented >> using natural:secondary=*, landuse:secondary=* etc. Dehesas would >> under such scheme be something like >> >> - landuse=farmland + landuse:secondary=orchard >> - landuse=meadow + landuse:secondary=orchard >> - landuse=orchard + landuse:secondary=meadow >> >> * creating one or more region specific secondary tags for exising >> primary tags like landuse=farmland or landuse=orchard for documenting >> the region specific ecological characteristics of the area. >> >> -- >> Christoph Hormann >> http://www.imagico.de/ >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
It appears to be a specific type of farmland, so landuse=farmland + farmland=dehesa would say it all and disrupt nothing. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 31 aug. 2019 om 12:25 heeft Diego Cruz het volgende > geschreven: > > Hi Cristoph, > > Thank you for your feedback, it's really appreciated. You are completely > right when you say that dehesa might exclude similar environments in other > parts of the world, and that is of course not my intention. I just used the > word dehesa because it appears as such in Wikipedia. Among your three > proposals, I would go with landuse=agroforestry, because it would be a way of > reflecting this mixed usage of land without being too local. As for > establishing two different landuse tags for the same territory, it could be > fine for me, but I don't know if that would create rendering problems (as I > mentioned, I'm new to this). I don't think this should be resolved with > secondary tags, because a dehesa is an entity in itself and the uses of the > land are not subordinated to each other. > > I will wait for more replies before modifying my proposal. > > Best regards > Diego > >> El vie., 30 ago. 2019 a las 12:00, Christoph Hormann () >> escribió: >> On Friday 30 August 2019, Diego Cruz wrote: >> > >> > I have recently proposed a new tag in the Wiki, because none of the >> > existing landuse tags seem to match it. A dehesa is a type of land >> > that combines a forest with either fields or pasturelands (or both) >> > at the same time. It is extensively used in the Iberian Peninsula, >> > both in Spain and Portugal. Please see the details in my proposal >> > below: >> > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dehesa >> >> This is certainly a valid idea for inventing a new tag and it is good >> that you open up discussion early. Let me take this as an example for >> two things that have in the past been decisive on the broader success >> of tags: >> >> * local verifiability. The primary definition of your tag is for areas >> in a certain region that are in the cultural tradition of that region >> called a certain way. You try to list a few verifiable criteria what >> not to use the tag for - but these are one sided criteria. Because >> natural=wood does not rule out use as pasture (and neither does >> landuse=orchard, which is also used for cork oak plantations), >> landuse=farmland does not rule out the presence of trees or the use as >> pasture and many savannas (for which we have no specific tag at the >> moment) are created by human influence. A good tag is one where a >> local observer, even a casual one like a traveler quickly coming >> through, can without much difficulty determine locally if the tag >> applies or not. >> >> * generic meaning. As already mentioned you draft this as a region >> specific tag although agroforestry is a practice that exists in many >> different parts of the world in different forms. Such tag will either >> stay a local speciality tag without much chance for being interpreted >> by global data users and possibly mirrored by other region specific >> tags with similar but slightly different meaning or it will morph into >> a broad umbrella tag - for example for any kind of 'area with trees >> that does not really qualify as wood/forest'. Well known examples for >> such tags are natural=fell and landuse=village_green. >> >> There are three potential tagging concepts i could imagine could be >> derived from your idea that would seem more promising in that regard: >> >> * a tag for agroforestry landuse. This of course would only be locally >> verifiable if there is active agricultural use. That would only >> qualify those dehesas that are actively used for agriculture as such. >> And it would say very little about the physical appearance and >> ecological characteristics of an area. >> >> * establishing a generic tagging concept for secondary characteristics >> of areas - like use of orchards as pasture, underbrush in a forest or >> scattered trees on a meadow. This could be quite easily implemented >> using natural:secondary=*, landuse:secondary=* etc. Dehesas would >> under such scheme be something like >> >> - landuse=farmland + landuse:secondary=orchard >> - landuse=meadow + landuse:secondary=orchard >> - landuse=orchard + landuse:secondary=meadow >> >> * creating one or more region specific secondary tags for exising >> primary tags like landuse=farmland or landuse=orchard for documenting >> the region specific ecological characteristics of the area. >> >> -- >> Christoph Hormann >> http://www.imagico.de/ >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Hi Cristoph, Thank you for your feedback, it's really appreciated. You are completely right when you say that dehesa might exclude similar environments in other parts of the world, and that is of course not my intention. I just used the word dehesa because it appears as such in Wikipedia. Among your three proposals, I would go with landuse=agroforestry, because it would be a way of reflecting this mixed usage of land without being too local. As for establishing two different landuse tags for the same territory, it could be fine for me, but I don't know if that would create rendering problems (as I mentioned, I'm new to this). I don't think this should be resolved with secondary tags, because a dehesa is an entity in itself and the uses of the land are not subordinated to each other. I will wait for more replies before modifying my proposal. Best regards Diego El vie., 30 ago. 2019 a las 12:00, Christoph Hormann () escribió: > On Friday 30 August 2019, Diego Cruz wrote: > > > > I have recently proposed a new tag in the Wiki, because none of the > > existing landuse tags seem to match it. A dehesa is a type of land > > that combines a forest with either fields or pasturelands (or both) > > at the same time. It is extensively used in the Iberian Peninsula, > > both in Spain and Portugal. Please see the details in my proposal > > below: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dehesa > > This is certainly a valid idea for inventing a new tag and it is good > that you open up discussion early. Let me take this as an example for > two things that have in the past been decisive on the broader success > of tags: > > * local verifiability. The primary definition of your tag is for areas > in a certain region that are in the cultural tradition of that region > called a certain way. You try to list a few verifiable criteria what > not to use the tag for - but these are one sided criteria. Because > natural=wood does not rule out use as pasture (and neither does > landuse=orchard, which is also used for cork oak plantations), > landuse=farmland does not rule out the presence of trees or the use as > pasture and many savannas (for which we have no specific tag at the > moment) are created by human influence. A good tag is one where a > local observer, even a casual one like a traveler quickly coming > through, can without much difficulty determine locally if the tag > applies or not. > > * generic meaning. As already mentioned you draft this as a region > specific tag although agroforestry is a practice that exists in many > different parts of the world in different forms. Such tag will either > stay a local speciality tag without much chance for being interpreted > by global data users and possibly mirrored by other region specific > tags with similar but slightly different meaning or it will morph into > a broad umbrella tag - for example for any kind of 'area with trees > that does not really qualify as wood/forest'. Well known examples for > such tags are natural=fell and landuse=village_green. > > There are three potential tagging concepts i could imagine could be > derived from your idea that would seem more promising in that regard: > > * a tag for agroforestry landuse. This of course would only be locally > verifiable if there is active agricultural use. That would only > qualify those dehesas that are actively used for agriculture as such. > And it would say very little about the physical appearance and > ecological characteristics of an area. > > * establishing a generic tagging concept for secondary characteristics > of areas - like use of orchards as pasture, underbrush in a forest or > scattered trees on a meadow. This could be quite easily implemented > using natural:secondary=*, landuse:secondary=* etc. Dehesas would > under such scheme be something like > > - landuse=farmland + landuse:secondary=orchard > - landuse=meadow + landuse:secondary=orchard > - landuse=orchard + landuse:secondary=meadow > > * creating one or more region specific secondary tags for exising > primary tags like landuse=farmland or landuse=orchard for documenting > the region specific ecological characteristics of the area. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
On Friday 30 August 2019, Diego Cruz wrote: > > I have recently proposed a new tag in the Wiki, because none of the > existing landuse tags seem to match it. A dehesa is a type of land > that combines a forest with either fields or pasturelands (or both) > at the same time. It is extensively used in the Iberian Peninsula, > both in Spain and Portugal. Please see the details in my proposal > below: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dehesa This is certainly a valid idea for inventing a new tag and it is good that you open up discussion early. Let me take this as an example for two things that have in the past been decisive on the broader success of tags: * local verifiability. The primary definition of your tag is for areas in a certain region that are in the cultural tradition of that region called a certain way. You try to list a few verifiable criteria what not to use the tag for - but these are one sided criteria. Because natural=wood does not rule out use as pasture (and neither does landuse=orchard, which is also used for cork oak plantations), landuse=farmland does not rule out the presence of trees or the use as pasture and many savannas (for which we have no specific tag at the moment) are created by human influence. A good tag is one where a local observer, even a casual one like a traveler quickly coming through, can without much difficulty determine locally if the tag applies or not. * generic meaning. As already mentioned you draft this as a region specific tag although agroforestry is a practice that exists in many different parts of the world in different forms. Such tag will either stay a local speciality tag without much chance for being interpreted by global data users and possibly mirrored by other region specific tags with similar but slightly different meaning or it will morph into a broad umbrella tag - for example for any kind of 'area with trees that does not really qualify as wood/forest'. Well known examples for such tags are natural=fell and landuse=village_green. There are three potential tagging concepts i could imagine could be derived from your idea that would seem more promising in that regard: * a tag for agroforestry landuse. This of course would only be locally verifiable if there is active agricultural use. That would only qualify those dehesas that are actively used for agriculture as such. And it would say very little about the physical appearance and ecological characteristics of an area. * establishing a generic tagging concept for secondary characteristics of areas - like use of orchards as pasture, underbrush in a forest or scattered trees on a meadow. This could be quite easily implemented using natural:secondary=*, landuse:secondary=* etc. Dehesas would under such scheme be something like - landuse=farmland + landuse:secondary=orchard - landuse=meadow + landuse:secondary=orchard - landuse=orchard + landuse:secondary=meadow * creating one or more region specific secondary tags for exising primary tags like landuse=farmland or landuse=orchard for documenting the region specific ecological characteristics of the area. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa
Hi everyone, This is the first time I use this mailing list, so please excuse me if I'm accidentally ignoring any step in the proceedings. I have recently proposed a new tag in the Wiki, because none of the existing landuse tags seem to match it. A dehesa is a type of land that combines a forest with either fields or pasturelands (or both) at the same time. It is extensively used in the Iberian Peninsula, both in Spain and Portugal. Please see the details in my proposal below: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dehesa Thank you in advance for your contributions Diego ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
