As someone who has mapped a lot of landcover & landuse <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/44.0219/-73.1532> in my local area, I welcome sorting out the confusion that is the current state of natural=wood/landuse=forest. Many parcels around me are managed for forestry purposes but don't have trees currently while others had been cleared at one point, but have returned to forest due to neglect and are not managed for timber production. My current practice is to map areas covered in trees as landcover=trees + natural=wood, but I'd love to drop the natural=wood if landcover=trees was rendered. Generally, I don't imagine that I'd map much landuse=forestry, which is probably a good thing as I don't often know which land is managed for productive forestry and which is more negligent forest succession. In cases where the management is known and is important to be known, then landuse=forestry becomes a useful tag as it is unambiguous as to what it means.
I hope that a shift toward landuse=forestry would also include a shift toward landcover=*, in particular landcover=trees as the rightful clear designation that "there are trees here". Here is an old landcover=* proposal <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover> that might be resurrected and updated. I'm not sure if I would want landuse=forestry to be rendered by default or if so, how I would like it to be styled. Generally in my region, areas managed for forestry are more parcel boundaries than anything equating the land-cover on the ground, so renderings that include iconography like trees are problematic if those icons overlap and conflict with other land covers. I see landuse=forestry as something more useful for custom maps or maybe something that would be rendered as a subtle modifier to more-visible land-cover renderings which are more directly visible and impactful when traversing the landscape. Best, Adam On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:39 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:14, David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote: > > Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and >> the transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know >> about such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the >> main problem for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard style to >> not discourage its use, > > > Yup. If it rendered, people who read this list would use it. If enough > people used it, editors > would offer it as a preset (for iD somebody would have to raise the issue > on github since > Bryan Housel recently announced he was no longer following this list). A > couple of vicious > circles there. > > but style devs rejected adding its rendering before its use spread a bit. > > > I don't know if they have rejected this specific idea, or even if they > were asked. It's just > that they often require that a tag has been used sufficiently in the wild > before they consider > adding it. > > Some sort of vicious circle, in fact? >> > > As I said, two of them. It won't be widely used until editors offer it as > a preset and it > renders. So we're at an impasse. A proposal to introduce it that > suggests dual-tagging > until it takes off enough for editors and carto to support it seems the > only way forward - > not guaranteed to succeed but it might. > > I might even write the proposal myself. But only after I get a feel for > the mood here. So > far nobody has heaped scorn on the idea, which is a good sign, but I'd > like to see a little > more support first because if people here don't see it as sensible then > neither will > most ordinary mappers. > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
