On 11/05/2016 4:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
Il giorno 10 mag 2016, alle ore 19:55, Mike Thompson <[email protected]> ha
scritto:
We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
* What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree on.
* Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest Service)
- seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on this one.
* How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural secondary
growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words, all treed
areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and tags indicating the
origin of the trees be added where this information is known.
* How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus on a
more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.
+1, and we also have names (for forests, woods, etc.) that don't coincide
perfectly with where trees grow, where forestry is the landuse etc. (i.e. those
are toponyms that should have their own geometry, at least it should be
possible on a semantic level to have them as distinct objects where necessary),
also nested.
+1 in principle .. detail is the killer.
landuse=forest a simple definition?: Where the land is used to produce
forestry products
e.g. wood pulp for paper production, lumber, rubber (from rubber trees), oils
(eucalyptus, tea tree oil).
Tagging the type of trees has been documented, but the
creation/planting/source/maintenance of trees has not been done yet,
I don't think it would be well known, popular nor would renders know how to
display it. So this may not be of much use nor commonly tagged.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
