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

Reply via email to