I have made a rough draft on the OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing#Proposal
Later.
On 04/08/18 09:43, Warin wrote:
On 29/07/18 20:56, Andy Townsend wrote:
What I've tended to do with clearings is:
o natural=wood for "here be trees", with leaf_type added.
o If there's a large "landuse=forest" area already and that
encompasses wood, clearings, ponds etc. (and there often is), leave
that as "landuse=forest" or add as "landuse=forestry" (note - that
tag is in very little use)
o Add some kind of note for clearings, especially where trees have
gone but are present on some imagery, and also some kind of note on
tree areas that are newly planted and won't look like trees on imagery.
This is all far from perfect, especially given all the other problems
of mapping in trees (not all bits of woods accessible, imagery out of
date, GPS traces miles off because of the trees, etc.).
I have made many 'holes' in areas of trees. It is simple to do, and
conveys the information 'here be a gap'. I usually have left no note
as I can either see what is there and map it, be lazy and leave it for
someone else (in which case I'll be lazy and not leave a note too) or
I cannot see what is there so just leave it.
I do usually add a source tag to the way ... that way future mappers
can see directly where the thing came from without looking at a change
set - which may have several sources!!!
I wouldn't personally remove "invalid" landuse tags* unless I had a
pretty good idea of what to replace them with (usually I'd need to
have been there), and I'd certainly be wary of removing information
that might be useful to future mappers, even if that information is
only "this was mapped by an inexperienced HOT mapper using very odd
tags a long time ago".
The problem is that leaving it encourages it use and, being
undocumented, it use in ways that are different for the way in which
it was used.
If it is a land use .. then 'clearing' is not it. It could be a yard
for live stock or a camp site. It could be many useful things.. but
'clearing' is not what it is. No, 'clearing' denotes a relief in the
local features - usually the vegetation coverage.
As this is not a 'landuse' but a landcover I think moving it to
landcover=clearing would be a good first step.
Then back that up by documenting it with 4 ways of mapping it (state
what is there, state the surrounding landcover, do both of those or
tag with landcover=clearing .. with some detail on the 4 methods and
links to them and some comment on best to worst practice/rendering. I
think that will be helpful.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
