> On Jan 22, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Adam Franco <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
+10 for this! I also dual tag areas with trees as natural=wood and landcover=trees with the hope being that landcover=trees becomes the norm. Perhaps the way forward would be to change the wiki to indicate that landuse=forest is deprecated due to its confused usage. Add some text to the page directing mappers to either landcover=trees if they are simply mapping the presence of trees or landuse=forestry if they are mapping an area used for the production of wood products (lumber, paper, etc.) that may or may not have trees on it a the moment. Not rendering landuse=forestry on the default OSM map to reduce “tagging for the renderer” is an interesting idea. I’ll have to think about that but it does have some appeal.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
