landuse=forestry seems a logical choice. On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 17:38 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
> > > > 6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com: > > So we have available to us: > > landcover=trees - seldom used, but available and unambiguous > natural=wood - controversial, what qualifies a woodland as being > 'natural?' There's next to no land anywhere on the planet that has not been > managed by humans in some way. > landuse=forest - asserted to be synonymous with landcover=trees, but has a > natural-language meaning that it designates a forestry land use. > > > landuse=forest was burned for purposes of tagging forestry land use - of > anyone cares about it they should use a new tag (that probably needs to be > invented). > > > boundary=protected_area - I suppose, but sorting out 'this is protected > for forestry' requires parsing not only protect_class but also the > natural-language 'protection_title' or other nonstandard tagging. > > > Using this tag to mark forestry areas seems to be quite tortured > interpretation. > > > leisure=nature_reserve - At least this one renders, and a lot of things > are nature reserves. Including working forests, maybe, I suppose, but this > smells of tagging for the renderer. > > > Nature reserves of for, well, nature reserves that are not limited to > forest. > > > That may be in some regions limited to forestry areas but it would be a > local quirk. > > > > Nothing really fits "This land is used for production of forest products" > > > So be tag should be invented by someone who cares about it. > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
