On 13/06/18 23:01, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:


    On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
    2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
    <matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

        13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com
        <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

            2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
            <matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

                Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag
                (rarely done for obvious reasons) and

            what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is
            owned by the public or privately owned?


        Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this
        information.


    the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the
    jurisdiction.


    The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be
    beyond the mappers tolerance.
    The may want to map other things with that time that they see as
    much more important and usefull to them.
    If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it
    is ultimately the State Government .

    Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
    Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special
    event on - like a car rally.
    These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not
    normally mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for
    well.


Yes.

I don't do a lot of landcover mapping, because I render my own maps with third-party landcover data. I do landcover for detail mapping in my own neighbourhood, for producing large-scale trail maps of specific small areas, or to override trouble spots in the third-party database.willing o

For landuse mapping, what chiefly concerns me is recreational opportunities.

To this end, I maintain a few imports of public lands in New York State, as well as mapping various public-access lands that are in private hands. I do try to map access in places where it's complicated. Some of these lands are managed for forestry - and I have no tag available to indicate this. Neither 'natural=wood' nor 'landuse=forest' appear to mean anything more than 'shade this area green on the map, and draw trees on it.'

If this discussion reaches some sort of rough consensus, I'm certainly willing to do mechanical edits updating the few thousand areas that I imported. (Mechanical edits to correct systematic errors in imported data are, as I understand it, acceptable.) I'm not very happy with the use of those imports as evidence of 'this is tagging practice' - the current import is more 'least worst' tagging that will remain consistent with current rendering and with imports in neighbouring states. I'm NOT willing to retag with mechanical edits if the price of the retagging will be that the State Forests, Wildlife Management Areas, Watershed Recreation Areas, and so on will disappear from the main map.

What I want:

Showing that land is treed ('natural=wood' or the proposed 'landcover=trees') is easy enough. 'landuse=forest' appears to be synonymous with both 'natural=wood' and 'landcover=trees' and so isn't useful to me, although I've tried consistently to use it to indicate designated land use and not landcover. The result has been rendering gaffes where trees are overlaid on water - but they don't bother me excessively, since most of those ponds will have trees again in a few decades, as human and beaver remodeling of the land shifts elsewhere.

'landuse=forest' to designate landcover is unworkable. As Warin said in an earlier post, a piece of land has one use. (I oversimplify; land may have secondary uses, for example, land managed for forestry with public recreation as a secondary objective, but NEITHER of those implies that a particular square metre is or is not tree-covered.) An object like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175474 is an example. The land USE is, correctly, military - the land is used, for instance, for live fire exercises. The land COVER for large parts of the Academy is trees - what an ecologist would call 'temperate mixed forest'.

That treed land cover is contiguous with Bear Mountain/Harriman State Park (which should be boundary=national_park, but that's a different argument), Black Rock Forest (private land open to public outside certain seasons), Storm King State Park (managed, effectively, as leisure=nature_reserve), Storm King Art Center (amenity=museum - an outdoor sculpture gallery in a partly-wooded setting), and various private holdings (where I'm not trying to tag land use).

So, what I'm after is: some tag that I can use for something like the International Paper tract in the Adirondacks (not mapped because (a) I haven't got to it, and (b) the tagging would be just too controversial). It is owned by a private common-stock corporation. It is managed to grow trees for paper (as you might imagine). It is ordinarily open to the public to hike, ski, snowshoe, and so on except in areas where active logging or reforestation is in progress. Several public trails traverse it. It is not a nature reserve of any sort. It is private forest land. (I oversimplify; it's within the boundaries of the Adirondack Park, and so regulated tightly by the Adirondack Park Agency, which is a public-private partnership. It's complicated, but to a first approximation, it's 'private land open to the publlic.')

So I'd like to see landuse=forestry foot=yes ski=yes operator='International Paper' etc. for this parcel. The really important aspect is the access, but it's a little strange to have access tagging without the object's representing some sort of tangible thing.

I'd earlier have said, 'landuse=forest', but that tag has become too ambiguous. There's no good tag available to me. I'm not convinced by the arguments that we can't introduce a new tag: "It will just be abused the same way that landuse=forest was" is simply a counsel of despair. "It conflicts with existing practice." Any new tag conflicts with existing practice. "There are too many areas out there to change them." I'm volunteering to change the few thousand that I entered, as needed. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's willing to put in the work!

I'd think there is around 1,000 here that I can change. About 600 in 'my' state and the rest I hope to find mapped in OSM other states.

At the moment for rendering green with trees there is natural=wood. And that can be combined with landuse=forestry. To me the natural=wood tag is a 'tagging for the render' thing, and I don't like it. But it may be a work around until landuse=forestry is accepted and rendered in a different way to 'there be trees'. I'd not add the tag landcover=trees, in the long term I'd remove natural=wood from landuse=forestry to keep landuse=forestry clean of 'there be trees'.

There is also landuse=logging which I suspect is really forestry ... over 47,000 uses of that tag.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to