There are a number of associated issues, such as named and/or numbered compartments in woods & forests; and a named wood with different types of trees. I asked a question <https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/29570/naming-a-wood-with-different-types-of-trees>on OSM Help about such things a while back, and some ideas were discussed <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Section>on the wiki ages ago.
In the recent past I visited Bradfield Woods, which could be tagged as a nature reserve. This consists of two named woods each of which in turn has many named coppice compartments. All of the names will be old because the documented history of coppicing in these woods goes back to the 13th century. I think in summary no existing tagging scheme handles these types of nestings of woodlands. I believe that it is a more widespread and generic issue. It can either be addressed on a case-by-case basis: for instance building_part and cemetery_sector or we can search for a more universal way of handling this sort of thing. (Other examples include lakes containing named bays, archipelagos with individually named islands, mountains where the peaks have different names (Buchaille Etive Mor comes to mind), mountain ranges and so on). Jerry On 9 October 2014 17:34, Andy Street <[email protected]> wrote: > I've recently been thinking about how to map areas such as the Forest of > Bere[1] which is an area of woodland comprised of smaller sections each > with their own name. Ideally I think that the forest should be mapped > as a separate entity so that a search for "Forest of Bere" would > return the whole area whilst "Upperford Copse" would return only the > relevant bit. > > My initial thoughts were to create a multipolygon (natural=wood, > name=Forest of Bere, ...) using the outline of the smaller areas but > while I'm perfectly happy to overlap landuse (military, park, school, > golf course, etc.) with landcover (woods, water, etc.) I'm not so sure > that overlapping landcover with landcover is such a good idea. There is > also a complicating factor in the form of several woodland clearings > which are currently unmapped. If you speak to people on the ground they > generally consider such areas to be "in the forest" despite the lack of > trees. Perhaps place=locality or place=forest would be a better fit? > > Has anyone dealt with a similar issue? I'm hoping that someone will > help me see the wood for the trees! > > [1] http://osm.org/go/euoc4tP5-- > -- > Regards, > > Andy Street > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
