Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Tom Pfeifer]

These are all rendering questions that should be discussed separately
from tagging, as there can be many different map styles being created
for different purposes.

johnw wrote on 2014-09-25

Or make Highway=trunk a little brighter green, so it stands out against the 
wood even more.
johnw  wrote:


If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees on the 
ground",  then the current implementation of forest - the bright green with tree markers - 
should probably use the same color of "wood" green, as they are all just a large amount 
of trees.  The forest still uses the the tree icon overlay, to show usage, just like Nature Reserve 
has the NR overlay, or Zoo with the Z overlay.

If we're gonna seperate conditions on the ground from usage, then it seems that having a 
single color that means "trees" is a good idea.

That would also free up a more visible green for another use on the map, maybe 
something distinctly manmade, like crop=rice, crop=corn, crop=vegetable, etc. 
(and leave the brown for wheat). Just an idea.


There are large sections of cleared and replanted cedars here in Japan, and it 
is actively logged - so it has a different land use - but it is al just hills 
covered with trees. The only time most people notice or care about the 
difference is in winter, when the cedars stay dark green and the native mixed 
maple forest loses it's leaves - the mountains become grey and black striped.

Javbw




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[johnw]

Or make Highway=trunk a little brighter green, so it stands out against the 
wood even more.


On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:59 AM, johnw  wrote:

> If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees 
> on the ground",  then the current implementation of forest - the bright green 
> with tree markers - should probably use the same color of "wood" green, as 
> they are all just a large amount of trees.  The forest still uses the the 
> tree icon overlay, to show usage, just like Nature Reserve has the NR 
> overlay, or Zoo with the Z overlay. 
> 
> If we're gonna seperate conditions on the ground from usage, then it seems 
> that having a single color that means "trees" is a good idea. 
> 
> That would also free up a more visible green for another use on the map, 
> maybe something distinctly manmade, like crop=rice, crop=corn, 
> crop=vegetable, etc. (and leave the brown for wheat). Just an idea.
> 
> 
> There are large sections of cleared and replanted cedars here in Japan, and 
> it is actively logged - so it has a different land use - but it is al just 
> hills covered with trees. The only time most people notice or care about the 
> difference is in winter, when the cedars stay dark green and the native mixed 
> maple forest loses it's leaves - the mountains become grey and black striped. 
> 
> Javbw
> 
> On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:18 AM, Andrew Guertin  wrote:
> 
>> On 09/24/2014 01:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> 2014-09-24 18:22 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy :
>>> 
 On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin
  wrote:
 
> landcover=forest anywhere there's trees on the ground
 
>>> there is already a proposal in the wiki and the key is in use:
>>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover#values
>>> 
>>> please not ~10k trees vs. 11 forest (i.e. factor 1000)
>> 
>> Sure, landcover=trees does seem better.
>> 
>> I wrote that out because it had been bouncing around in my head for a while, 
>> but I hadn't put much research into it. I'm not surprised people have 
>> pointed out problems with it (though I still think it's a good starting 
>> point and an improved version would be a good way to fix our problems).
>> 
>> --Andrew
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Forest vs Wood

[johnw]

If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees on 
the ground",  then the current implementation of forest - the bright green with 
tree markers - should probably use the same color of "wood" green, as they are 
all just a large amount of trees.  The forest still uses the the tree icon 
overlay, to show usage, just like Nature Reserve has the NR overlay, or Zoo 
with the Z overlay. 

If we're gonna seperate conditions on the ground from usage, then it seems that 
having a single color that means "trees" is a good idea. 

That would also free up a more visible green for another use on the map, maybe 
something distinctly manmade, like crop=rice, crop=corn, crop=vegetable, etc. 
(and leave the brown for wheat). Just an idea.


There are large sections of cleared and replanted cedars here in Japan, and it 
is actively logged - so it has a different land use - but it is al just hills 
covered with trees. The only time most people notice or care about the 
difference is in winter, when the cedars stay dark green and the native mixed 
maple forest loses it's leaves - the mountains become grey and black striped. 

Javbw

On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:18 AM, Andrew Guertin  wrote:

> On 09/24/2014 01:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2014-09-24 18:22 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy :
>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 landcover=forest anywhere there's trees on the ground
>>> 
>> there is already a proposal in the wiki and the key is in use:
>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover#values
>> 
>> please not ~10k trees vs. 11 forest (i.e. factor 1000)
> 
> Sure, landcover=trees does seem better.
> 
> I wrote that out because it had been bouncing around in my head for a while, 
> but I hadn't put much research into it. I'm not surprised people have pointed 
> out problems with it (though I still think it's a good starting point and an 
> improved version would be a good way to fix our problems).
> 
> --Andrew
> 
> ___
> 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] Forest vs Wood

[Andrew Guertin]

On 09/24/2014 01:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2014-09-24 18:22 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy :


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin
 wrote:


landcover=forest anywhere there's trees on the ground



there is already a proposal in the wiki and the key is in use:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover#values

please not ~10k trees vs. 11 forest (i.e. factor 1000)


Sure, landcover=trees does seem better.

I wrote that out because it had been bouncing around in my head for a 
while, but I hadn't put much research into it. I'm not surprised people 
have pointed out problems with it (though I still think it's a good 
starting point and an improved version would be a good way to fix our 
problems).


--Andrew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-09-24 18:22 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy :

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin 
> wrote:
>
> > landcover=forest
> > anywhere there's trees on the ground
>
> This doesn't agree with my (British English) understanding of the
> terms; a wood can be small, but a forest is always large.



+1
a wood can be relatively small (but also has a minimum size, just a row of
trees will most likely not be a wood), but a forest has to be big in order
to develop the ecosystem it is.
I'd also like to point out that we aren't operating in a void when speaking
about landcover, there is already a proposal in the wiki and the key is in
use:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover#values

please not ~10k trees vs. 11 forest (i.e. factor 1000)

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[John Sturdy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin  wrote:

> landcover=forest
> anywhere there's trees on the ground

This doesn't agree with my (British English) understanding of the
terms; a wood can be small, but a forest is always large.  "Small" and
"large" being loosely defined, but for something to be called "forest"
I'd expect it to be many times larger than a typical farm field.
Trying to pin down my intuition on it: a forest would be big enough to
have one or more villages within its boundaries.   However, the term
"woodland" can be used at any scale, I think.

__John

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-09-24 1:21 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel :

> I think the right thing to do is to look to professional geography.
> There, there are two separate concepts
>
>   land use: what humans do with the land
>
>   land cover: what is actually there
>


+1, but I think there are even more concepts to consider. Think about
geographical regions / named areas. An area with a forest name will often
(especially if it is bigger) have also other landcover and landuse inside
it. It is not strictly a forest in the sense that every square meter is
shaded by trees. And very often inside a forest area with a name you will
have other forest areas with other names (for these smaller parts), i.e.
nesting. This nested objects should have their name rendered, but not
necessarily they have to be filled or outlined.



>
>
> So landuse=forest is appropriate for land which is being managed for
> production, even if it is little pulp trees.
>


+1, maybe even if the area has just been logged and is bare for the moment.



>
> And natural=wood (or we should move to landcover=wood, really) for areas
> that are dominated by trees.
>



I'd stick with the "natural describes a geographic object" definition and
use natural=forest (and maybe also natural=woodland for less dense areas)
for things I described above (a forest as a geographical entity). For areas
which are covered by trees (and which often aren't forests but only small
patches of trees) I am using and advocating "landcover=trees".

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Greg Troxel]

Matthijs Melissen  writes:

> On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
>> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
>> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
>
> Most forests in the Netherlands are managed by Staatsbosbeheer, the
> national forest trust.
> They have as policy (at least for some of their forests) not to
> intervene in their forests unless there is danger to visitors. The
> forests are typically planted by humans centuries ago, but I can
> imagine most of the trees nowadays have grown naturally (although I
> have no way to verify this). How would you classify these?

That is landuse=conservation.



I think the right thing to do is to look to professional geography.
There, there are two separate concepts

  land use: what humans do with the land

  land cover: what is actually there


So landuse=forest is appropriate for land which is being managed for
production, even if it is little pulp trees.

And natural=wood (or we should move to landcover=wood, really) for areas
that are dominated by trees.

So land that is wooded that is *intentionally* being left in a natural
state so that future generations will still have access is
landuse=conservation, not landuse=forest.  And then it needs landcover
tags to describe where trees/grass/etc. are.

There are areas in the US which are "national forests" which people can
get permission to cut trees, and to graze cattle.  Not all of the area
in them is wooded; there are fields and roads.  (I just drove through
one and had to stop for cows in the road, with both sides meadow.)

So the big sticking point is that people have to get over "but in my
country forest means X".   We need to have a global definition of what
the tags mean, and then not worry that local usage of those words has a
vast number of differences.

The key point is to separate landuse, which is "what are humans doing
with the land" and "what's actually there".


pgpJtlNPPdecd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Pieren]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Andrew Guertin  wrote:
> landcover=forest
> anywhere there's trees on the ground
> landuse=managed_forest
> where logging activity occurs or the forest is otherwise closely
> tended by humans
> natural=wild_forest
> forests without much human activity, either because they're
> protected or because they're far away from humans

So, after 7 or 8 years of confusion about 2 main tags for "forest",
the best idea now is to introduce a third one...

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2014-08-21 22:29 GMT+02:00 Andrew Guertin :

> Personally, I think the following scheme would work well:
>
> landcover=forest
> anywhere there's trees on the ground
> landuse=managed_forest
> where logging activity occurs or the forest is otherwise closely
> tended by humans
> natural=wild_forest
> forests without much human activity, either because they're
> protected or because they're far away from humans
>

landuse=managed_forest is asking for problems. Every single forest in
Europe is somehow managed, even terrible
landuse=closely_managed_forest would be better as it is at least clear.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Yves]

Good proposal, Andrew.

On 21 août 2014 22:29:40 UTC+02:00, Andrew Guertin  
wrote:
>On 08/20/2014 04:58 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
>>>
>>> * for ensuring good data; and
>>> * to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
>>>
>>> Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right of the wiki
>page
>>> (and thus those that get picked up by taginfo and other software)
>are:
>>>
>>> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
>>> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>>>
>>> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there
>seem to
>>> be so much confusion?
>>
>> landuse/landcover/natural need resolving so I would not spend too
>much
>> energy on partial improvements of it.
>
>True, but this is the largest single part of what needs to be fixed 
>about it all.
>
>Personally, I think the following scheme would work well:
>
>landcover=forest
>   anywhere there's trees on the ground
>landuse=managed_forest
>   where logging activity occurs or the forest is otherwise closely
>   tended by humans
>natural=wild_forest
>   forests without much human activity, either because they're
>   protected or because they're far away from humans
>
>The landuse and natural tags would be in addition to landcover. The
>vast 
>majority of areas would have neither, because they're not cared for by 
>humans but they're still too affected by human interaction.
>
>This does get ambiguous anywhere humans decided "we want trees here,
>but 
>other than that we don't care", like the Three-North Shelter Forest 
>Program.
>
>landuse could have crop=*, if known.
>
>landuse=forest
>   Deprecated. Consumers probably want to treat this like
>   landcover=forest. Human editors should change this to a newer
>   tag only if they know what is appropriate, with the hint that
>   it might be a managed forest, if the original editor was paying
>   close attention.
>natural=wood
>   Deprecated. Consumers probably want to treat this like
>   landcover=forest. Human editors should change this to a newer
>   tag only if they know what is appropriate, with the hint that
>   it might be a wild forest, if the original editor was paying
>   close attention.
>
>--Andrew
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Andrew Guertin]

On 08/20/2014 04:58 PM, Richard Z. wrote:

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi,

Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:

* for ensuring good data; and
* to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]

Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right of the wiki page
(and thus those that get picked up by taginfo and other software) are:

Wood: Woodland with no forestry
Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.

In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem to
be so much confusion?


landuse/landcover/natural need resolving so I would not spend too much
energy on partial improvements of it.


True, but this is the largest single part of what needs to be fixed 
about it all.


Personally, I think the following scheme would work well:

landcover=forest
anywhere there's trees on the ground
landuse=managed_forest
where logging activity occurs or the forest is otherwise closely
tended by humans
natural=wild_forest
forests without much human activity, either because they're
protected or because they're far away from humans

The landuse and natural tags would be in addition to landcover. The vast 
majority of areas would have neither, because they're not cared for by 
humans but they're still too affected by human interaction.


This does get ambiguous anywhere humans decided "we want trees here, but 
other than that we don't care", like the Three-North Shelter Forest 
Program.


landuse could have crop=*, if known.

landuse=forest
Deprecated. Consumers probably want to treat this like
landcover=forest. Human editors should change this to a newer
tag only if they know what is appropriate, with the hint that
it might be a managed forest, if the original editor was paying
close attention.
natural=wood
Deprecated. Consumers probably want to treat this like
landcover=forest. Human editors should change this to a newer
tag only if they know what is appropriate, with the hint that
it might be a wild forest, if the original editor was paying
close attention.

--Andrew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Dave F.]

Hi

I think there are a few reasons, but let's start with the basics:

For two things so similar it's confusing to have two separate key 
values: natural & landuse. IMO both should use natural (which trees are 
of course).


Any description of their management/harvesting should be put into sub 
tags. However I will go as far as to say there a very few areas of trees 
in the world that have been manipulated by humans in some form or manner.


If there is any differences between wood & forest I would say it's in 
their size and/or density, but I've no idea where you'd put the dividing 
line.


David F.



On 20/08/2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi,

Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:

* for ensuring good data; and
* to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]

Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right of the wiki 
page (and thus those that get picked up by taginfo and other software) 
are:


Wood: Woodland with no forestry
Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.

In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there 
seem to be so much confusion?


Regards,
Rob

[1] 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/647#issuecomment-52756701



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 18:45 +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:

> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.

Sorry, no. Certainly in Australia and I am sure lots of other parts of
the world, the term 'forest' does not necessarily mean managed or
planted. Most forest here is natural, while we may regret there is not
as much there now as there was when the white man arrived, there is
still quite a lot.

A small part of it is logged from time to time but that does not mean
managed. The loggers get permission to come in, log, then leave it to
regenerate over, perhaps 50 to 100 years. Such areas are typically
referred to as "state forest". 

The term "woodland" here means lower density trees. For one purpose,
identifying bush fire risk, a woodland has 25% or less canopy cover and
trees of less than, from memory, 25 metres high.

Both forest and woodland can be on public or private land.
 
David
> 
> 
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there
> seem to be so much confusion?
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> [1]
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/647#issuecomment-52756701
> 
> ___
> 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] Forest vs Wood

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> Who planted or manages the rain forests?


Rain forests are forests/woods with a high annual rainfall. Here in Western
Washington State, some of the rain forests are protected, i.e. Olympic
National Park, others are managed and harvested. I suspect that is typical
in many locations.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Andy Mabbett]

On Aug 20, 2014 6:45 PM, "Rob Nickerson"  wrote:

> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation

Who planted or manages the rain forests?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 20/ago/2014, alle ore 19:45, Rob Nickerson 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.


isn't woodland less dense then a forest? I think a true forest needs to have 
some extent in order to be a forest (e.g. for habitat reasons, the ecosystem 
forest needs some space or will collapse/become something more like a park), 
while a wood might also be smaller and "woodland" is a different type again, a 
patchwork of shrubs, trees and grass/heath/rock (etc., according to climate and 
region).

The idea that a forest differs from woodland by the amount of management is a 
concept I have only seen in osm so far, it developed after both tags had 
already been in use, out of the wish to make some sense from the crowd-grown 
chaos.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
> 
> * for ensuring good data; and
> * to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
> 
> Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right of the wiki page
> (and thus those that get picked up by taginfo and other software) are:
> 
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
> 
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem to
> be so much confusion?

landuse/landcover/natural need resolving so I would not spend too much 
energy on partial improvements of it.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Rob Nickerson]

On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

>
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
>
I think for me the wording isn't quite right. For me landuse=forest is
something that has been planted for the purpose of harvesting trees.
Therefore planting trees to prevent landslides, or to block road noise, or
to provide leisure is not a case of landuse=forest. Similarly simply
managing trees (even if by a national "Forestry Commission") for the
purpose of keeping an area safe to the public is not a case of
landuse=forest.

Perhaps a crop=tree tag would have made more sense than landuse=forest??

I quite like Imagico's idea (below). I think we should implement that and
then if in a year or so there is still a mess between landuse=forest and
natural=wood we should introduce a new tag (crop=trees which now provides
the overlay pattern) and treat landuse=forest and natural=wood as the same
thing.

"The orthogonality of natural=wood and landuse=forest SK53
 pointed out could be emphasized in rendering by
drawing only natural=wood as a solid color area and distinguish
landuse=forest with a different overlay pattern indicating the use for
forestry (some trees+piles of logs symbolism maybe)"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2014-08-20 19:45 GMT+02:00 Rob Nickerson :

> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem
> to be so much confusion?
>

This difference is impossible to maintain during mapping as typically
forests are mapped from aerial images. And checking
whatever it is woodland without forestry requires extensive survey (what
worse, just visiting forest is not enough).

Anyway, I am unsure whatever there any example of properly mapped
natural=wood in Europe (assuming that this rules are considered
valid). I am pretty sure that every single forest is in some way maintained
by humans (at the very least - blocking access etc in NRs).

Also, reading infobox is not enough. Starting paragraph on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest

"Some use this tag for land primarily managed for timber production, others
uses if for woodland that is in some way
maintained by humans."
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> On 20 August 2014 19:25, Nelson A. de Oliveira  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Matthijs Melissen
>>  wrote:
>>> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
>>
>> With "commercial/industrial purpose/usage of the area"?
>
> Would planting forest to prevent landslides, or to provide leisure, be
> included in that definition?

For me, no.
Nor reforestation.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Tobias Knerr]

On 20.08.2014 20:30, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 20 August 2014 19:24, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
>> 3. This distinction feels unusual for people in countries where
>> traditional maps use other factors to distinguish different wood
>> signatures, e.g. broadleaved/needleleaved. The little pine-like icons in
>> the landuse areas seem somewhat confusing in that regard, too.
> 
> Are there countries that use the wood/forest distinction in their
> maps? Do you have examples of such maps?

I don't have examples of such maps, and I'm not sure whether they exist
at all. Thus I tried to avoid making a definitive statement about this.

If such maps should indeed not exist, though, I feel this would only
emphasize the point that people are not used to this distinction.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 20 August 2014 19:25, Nelson A. de Oliveira  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Matthijs Melissen
>  wrote:
>> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
>
> With "commercial/industrial purpose/usage of the area"?

Would planting forest to prevent landslides, or to provide leisure, be
included in that definition?

-- Matthijs

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 20 August 2014 19:24, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> 3. This distinction feels unusual for people in countries where
> traditional maps use other factors to distinguish different wood
> signatures, e.g. broadleaved/needleleaved. The little pine-like icons in
> the landuse areas seem somewhat confusing in that regard, too.

Are there countries that use the wood/forest distinction in their
maps? Do you have examples of such maps?

-- Matthijs

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Tobias Knerr]

On 20.08.2014 19:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
> 
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem
> to be so much confusion?

I believe some reasons why this topic comes up repeatedly are:

1. The definition wasn't always like this. It used to be that all
forests were natural=wood and land used for forestry would additionally
get tagged landuse=forest.

2. The current definition is problematic because it does not allow
simply mapping "forest" – you are forced to also map some distinction
that is not necessarily visible on the ground and that you may not be
interested in at all. (Unlike, say, an optional managed=yes/no would.)
So people might choose one of the two at random.

3. This distinction feels unusual for people in countries where
traditional maps use other factors to distinguish different wood
signatures, e.g. broadleaved/needleleaved. The little pine-like icons in
the landuse areas seem somewhat confusing in that regard, too.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?

With "commercial/industrial purpose/usage of the area"?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.

How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?

Most forests in the Netherlands are managed by Staatsbosbeheer, the
national forest trust.
They have as policy (at least for some of their forests) not to
intervene in their forests unless there is danger to visitors. The
forests are typically planted by humans centuries ago, but I can
imagine most of the trees nowadays have grown naturally (although I
have no way to verify this). How would you classify these?

I'm not the only one with this problem. There are hundreds of
natural=wood objects within urban London.

It seems that in the areas I checked, natural=wood is mainly used for
small patches of wood, and landuse=forest for larger forests.

-- Matthijs

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi,

Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:

* for ensuring good data; and
* to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]

Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right of the wiki page
(and thus those that get picked up by taginfo and other software) are:

Wood: Woodland with no forestry
Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.

In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem to
be so much confusion?

Regards,
Rob

[1]
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/647#issuecomment-52756701
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging