Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

Hello, Someone hinted it earlier, but may I repeat? Is @tagging (list) not working correctly? JB. Le 02/11/2017 à 13:34, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : sent from a phone On 2. Nov 2017, at 11:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: With landuse=residential there are no sub tags to indicate

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

sent from a phone > On 2. Nov 2017, at 11:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With landuse=residential there are no sub tags to indicate the kind of houses > there or apartment blocks, colours, height etc. we might do this though. If we were all urbanists and architects we most

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

sent from a phone > On 2. Nov 2017, at 11:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What next - the difference between a large group of houses and a smaller > group? we already do this. We don’t tag a village as tiny town or a city as huge village. Different size can lead to different

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

sent from a phone > On 2. Nov 2017, at 11:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How is a small area of trees different from a larger one? it offers habitat for animals, creates its own microclimate and develops different soil. A forest is different from a group of trees. Just go into

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02/11/17 10:34, Warin wrote: > On 02-Nov-17 09:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote: >> On 02/11/17 09:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> ONE tag to say what? You are still owing an answer to this. >> I think the problem is similar to the multiple areas problem. There are >> several layers of complexity

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02-Nov-17 08:58 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote: >> >> 2017-11-02 11:24 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis wrote: >>> >>> The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too >>> often I find myself in a residential area with

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02/11/17 10:17, Warin wrote: > A botanic Garden contains lots of different plants, including grass for > the ones I have been to. > Mapping each individual plant with its species and genus ... no thanks. > I did map one tree though, just to be inconsistent. :) But there is nothing stopping the

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02-Nov-17 09:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote: On 02/11/17 09:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: ONE tag to say what? You are still owing an answer to this. I think the problem is similar to the multiple areas problem. There are several layers of complexity so should landuse=residential enclose the

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02-Nov-17 08:58 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote: 2017-11-02 11:24 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis wrote: The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too often I find myself in a residential area with large gardens and trees when I expected to find a real forest based on what OSM is

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02/11/17 09:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > ONE tag to say what? You are still owing an answer to this. I think the problem is similar to the multiple areas problem. There are several layers of complexity so should landuse=residential enclose the whole area including the grass and wooded

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02-Nov-17 08:49 PM, Lester Caine wrote: On 02/11/17 09:13, Tomas Straupis wrote: IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many times, <...> And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right -> everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 11:49 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine wrote: >> P.S. And all I wanted was to talk about topology rules... BTW: here is >> an example of topology rules in Lithuania: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Lithuania/Topology_rules > > <...> In your rules #2 and #5 seem to be at odds?

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 11:24 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis wrote: > The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too > often I find myself in a residential area with large gardens and trees > when I expected to find a real forest based on what OSM is displaying. This is exactly why I started the

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02/11/17 09:13, Tomas Straupis wrote: >> IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many >> times, <...> > > And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right -> > everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this topic is not > settled for so many

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 10:24 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > > I like the landcover=trees idea, but this does not describe the > complete picture. I also want t be able to indicate what is between > the trees: ground, grass, grassy plants, bushes. > And when is something landcover=trees +

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 10:13 GMT+01:00 Tomas Straupis : > this topic is not > settled for so many years -> I suggest doing a compromise and agreeing > on ONE tag. ONE tag to say what? You are still owing an answer to this. Cheers, Martin

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too often I find myself in a residential area with large gardens and trees when I expected to find a real forest based on what OSM is displaying. So there is room for improvement. I like the landcover=trees idea, but this does not

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

> IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many > times, <...> And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right -> everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this topic is not settled for so many years -> I suggest doing a compromise and agreeing

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 8:14 GMT+01:00 Tomas Straupis : > Currently according to taginfo the most popular are: > natural=wood 4,5M > landuse=forest 3,5M > others are way behind. for example landcover=trees - 11000 objects... > > So maybe there is a point to choose one of the two

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

Currently according to taginfo the most popular are: natural=wood 4,5M landuse=forest 3,5M others are way behind. for example landcover=trees - 11000 objects... So maybe there is a point to choose one of the two popular tags and be done with it? If anybody wants more detail - subtags could be

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02-Nov-17 05:42 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 02.11.2017 o 07:14, Warin pisze: On 02-Nov-17 02:31 PM, Stephane Goldstein wrote: Do you have any other words that smean tree planting, growing and then harvesting?? And don't mean anything else? The closest I have is 'forestry'.

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

W dniu 02.11.2017 o 07:14, Warin pisze: On 02-Nov-17 02:31 PM, Stephane Goldstein wrote: Do you have any other words that smean tree planting, growing and then harvesting?? And don't mean anything else? The closest I have is 'forestry'. landuse=forestry is a good option as well.

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 02-Nov-17 02:31 PM, Stephane Goldstein wrote: If OSM were to have landuse=plantation there would need to be a further tag plantation=cotton/tobacco/coffee/sugar_cane/trees/banana///house/bushes/* Do you have any other words that smean tree planting, growing and then

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

> > If OSM were to have landuse=plantation there would need to be a further > tag plantation=cotton/tobacco/coffee/sugar_cane/trees/banana*/* > house/bushes/* > > Do you have any other words that smean tree planting, growing and then > harvesting?? And don't mean anything else? > The closest I

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 01-Nov-17 03:10 PM, Stephane Goldstein wrote: On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: On 01-Nov-17 09:24 AM, Stephane Goldstein wrote: B) depreciate landuse=forest and introduce a clearly defined

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01-Nov-17 09:24 AM, Stephane Goldstein wrote: > > B) >> depreciate landuse=forest and introduce a clearly defined >> landuse=forestry that only includes tree areas that produce base material >> for human use. >> > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 01-Nov-17 09:24 AM, Stephane Goldstein wrote: B) depreciate landuse=forest and introduce a clearly defined landuse=forestry that only includes tree areas that produce base material for human use. Managed forest for product harvesting  are commonly identified as Plantations,

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

> > B) > depreciate landuse=forest and introduce a clearly defined landuse=forestry > that only includes tree areas that produce base material for human use. > Managed forest for product harvesting are commonly identified as Plantations, which I think would be most appropriate term for landuse

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 01-Nov-17 02:26 AM, Christian Rogel wrote: "Landuse=forest" may remain for large forests off the inhabited places. No! Only if the tree area is to be used for the production of material for human use. IF not then it is not a 'land use' but a 'land cover' and should not be tagged

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

> Le 31 oct. 2017 à 10:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : > A problem comes from the name "natural" that to most people (including > mappers) carries a meaning that excludes some meanings accepted in the > OSMwiki definition. > For this reason it would be better to use a tag that

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > A problem comes from the name "natural" that to most people (including > mappers) carries a meaning that excludes some meanings accepted in the > OSMwiki definition. > For this reason it would be better to use a tag that

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

This discussion looks like a chance to write proposals that could be voted by more than 15 people. Yves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 31-Oct-17 07:54 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 31.10.2017 07:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:> one tag for what? An area with trees? A forest? How would you define> "forest"? One tag that can be used for mapping both the things currently mapped as landuse=forest, and the things currently mapped as

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 31.10.2017 07:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:> one tag for what? An area with trees? A forest? How would you define> "forest"? One tag that can be used for mapping both the things currently mapped as landuse=forest, and the things currently mapped as natural=wood. Whether that is a tag for

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 31-Oct-17 05:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 31. Oct 2017, at 00:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Depreciate natural=wood and introduce landcover=trees. landcover=trees is already introduced, I’m using it for years and others do the same. Just use it.

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

sent from a phone > On 31. Oct 2017, at 00:36, Dave F wrote: > > then I'd be happy to go with that as the /real/ problem is OSM is currently > using two different tags (both key & value!) to represent the same entity, this is really a non-issue, just

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

sent from a phone > On 31. Oct 2017, at 00:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Depreciate natural=wood and introduce landcover=trees. landcover=trees is already introduced, I’m using it for years and others do the same. Just use it. Cheers, Martin

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

sent from a phone > On 30. Oct 2017, at 18:25, Daniel Koć wrote: > > "Although forest is a term of common parlance, there is no universally > recognised precise definition, with more than 800 definitions of forest used > around the world." > > [

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 30/10/2017 17:25, Daniel Koć wrote: "Although /forest/ is a term of common parlance, there is no universally recognised precise definition, with more than 800 definitions of forest used around the world." This is part of the OSM problem - It's been misappropriated as a verb to indicate

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

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.

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

W dniu 30.10.2017 o 18:13, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: one tag for what? An area with trees? A forest? How would you define "forest"? "Although /forest/ is a term of common parlance, there is no universally recognised precise definition, with more than 800 definitions of forest used around

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-29 15:16 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 29/10/2017 14:16, 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 28/10/2017 22:02, Warin wrote: Maybe 'purposes' was a bit confusing, I see landuse=residential as a primary tag. Sub-tags are 'descriptive', 'adjective'. The 'cuisine' of a restaurant, or 'managed' for woods. for example. I see landuse as the primary tag, the values used with it are

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 28-Oct-17 10:54 PM, Dave F wrote: On 27/10/2017 20:53, Warin wrote: On 27-Oct-17 08:25 PM, Dave F wrote: You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary. *All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27/10/2017 20:53, Warin wrote: On 27-Oct-17 08:25 PM, Dave F wrote: You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary. *All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary tag. All "purposes"

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27/10/2017 13:00, Tomas Straupis wrote: Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise. What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy. OSM tagging comes AFTER that. As I map & tag what I see in

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-27 22:44 GMT+03:00 Warin wrote: > What you are talking about looks to be the rendering into layers and which > layer comes higher than the other. > > That is the choice of the render and what could be higher in one rendering > could be the lower in another rendering. While I agree with

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27-Oct-17 08:21 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: I have no idea what "landform" can be, so I don't have an opinion on that. Some land forms; peak cliff saddle ridge valley However "natural" key for trees ( https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=trees maybe?) sounds perfectly valid for

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27-Oct-17 09:17 PM, James wrote: landuse= man made and maintained natrual= it made itself(which is 99.9% of the time the case) Two different things. 'landuse' does not imply man made, but the use of the land. 'natural' implies made by nature, and this is hard for a mapper to be certain

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27-Oct-17 08:25 PM, Dave F wrote: You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary. *All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags. Your

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27-Oct-17 09:49 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote: 2017-10-27 12:25 GMT+03:00 Dave F wrote: You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary. If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically correct,

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27-Oct-17 09:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I can't ignore the landcover argument in this context, and still believe the natural= key should mean: "a geographic feature", not "something natural" (as opposed to artificial). I would tag a peak with natural=peak regardless of human

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

>>Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my >> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise. >>What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy. >>OSM tagging comes AFTER that. > > As I map & tag what I see in reality; could you expand on what

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27/10/2017 11:49, Tomas Straupis wrote: If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically correct, we would have to "cut out" (create multipolygons) for each small wood areas with 10 trees inside say residential area. Well, depending if it's a communal area or

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-27 12:25 GMT+03:00 Dave F wrote: > You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing > OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary. If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically correct, we would have to "cut out" (create

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27.10.17 12:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: [...] isn't there a difference between using the wood that grows naturally (without being planted) and growing wood for using it? [...] Now woods are being planted also for the renaturation. Here is, as an example, an information board of the

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

> In; F1 there are the words "general landuse polygons" > > F2 there are the words "residential, commercial, industrial zones" that > clearly imply land use. > > So your discussion is clearly about land use? Fine - that is ok. No. It is about virtual layers, calculated from OSM data for

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-27 0:49 GMT+02:00 Dave F : > I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't been > managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western world. > Even in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest or Borneo the locals use > wood

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

landuse= man made and maintained natrual= it made itself(which is 99.9% of the time the case) On Oct 27, 2017 5:27 AM, "Dave F" wrote: > You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing > OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary. *All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags. DaveF On 27/10/2017 08:52, Tomas Straupis

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

W dniu 27.10.2017 o 08:36, Warin pisze: The landuse key is clearly to tag the use of the land by humans. It's also to indicate use of the water, hence it's not 100% clear and I understand why some people don't like it. The natural key is unclear - it seams to be for both things made by

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27-Oct-17 06:52 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote: Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc), because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have tags F1 and F2. F1 is for general forests. Those

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc), because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have tags F1 and F2. F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale maps

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27-Oct-17 04:51 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: On 27.10.17 00:49, Dave F wrote: [...] I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western world. [...] There is a theory nowadays that woods should be

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

On 27.10.17 00:49, Dave F wrote: [...] I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western world. [...] There is a theory nowadays that woods should be left alone to natural cycles which may last

[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

(Split to a separate thread) The woods/forest problem is one of the worst tagging cock-ups in OSM. It's bad enough when alternate values are used to differentiate what is actually the same object, but in this case it's also the key! I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees

[OSM-talk] Woods Vs Forests (Was Topology rules)

Started a new thread as it's gone of subject. DaveF. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk