On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote: > All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a > forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in > recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, > although, clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are still mapped as > such, as they are considered to be part of the forest and are treated this > may, but they are morphologically not the forest: the forest is the area > administratively regarded as such, but it is not always the case; if I want, > for instance, to map them as a scrub area of the forest, as the polygons > overlapped, they are rendered in a mixed way. Is there a recommended way of > handling such cases without broking display? If so, what are they? The > landcover tag? boundary=forest_compartment? Another?
This again. There's a failed consensus here - and you risk reversion with either decision. I tend to follow the principle that landuse=* denotes the land USE, not the land COVER, so I don't demand that every square metre of landuse=forest be covered by trees. But many do, and the renderer follows their inclination. natural=wood is a possibility to show tree cover - but that leads some to argue that it has to be a 'natural' wood - whatever that means. I've heard it argued that the 'old second growth' forest that's increasingly common near me is still not 'natural' because a skilled forester can still find the human impact. (Of course, that was true even before the Europeans arrived - there was considerable pre-Columbian human impact on these forests.) landcover=trees doesn't render, but is at least unambiguous that it means tree cover and nothing else. landuse=forestry, for a managed forest, has been proposed but received a lukewarm reception. For the state forests and wildlife management areas around here, I tag at least boundary=protected_area. (Tag with the right protect_class, and add leisure=nature_reserve if it fits: 'nature reserve' covers a lot of things.) If I'm mapping land cover (I seldom do), I will use natural=wood to mean 'tree cover' and let others fight over it. But that's just what I do, and I do not argue that it is right. With the current state of the discussion, which has been in stalemate for a few years, there simply is no correct tagging, and what I do appears 'least wrong' to me. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
