On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by [email protected]:
The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
The essential difference between the two is that landuse must have
some human benefit, a produce, and a clear way of doing that is to
add the rendering of a axe to the tree.
(1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely unimportant
or at least not worth different rendering
(2) other people have different mismatching ideas what is the
"real" difference between natural=wood and landuse=forest
(3) there is no consistent difference in how natural=wood and
landuse=forest are used
by mappers
If the is no difference between the two then there will be no problem
depreciating landuse=forest.
There are some who do see a distinction of land use, and want to use
that distinction.
If some landuse=forest were to be re tagged landuse=forestry as it
matches a definition of 'landuse' will those using landuse=forest be
happy with that?
Will they then be happy that landuse=forest becomes depreciated as it is
seen as the same as natural=wood?
----------------------------------------------------------
A 'managed' tree area does not necessarily match the land use definition.
What is the purpose of this land management? Is there a produce that is
derived from the trees?
If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry.
A national park is 'managed' .. In Australia no produce comes out of it.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
