To clarify, my question was not around what tags to use for the areas with trees, it was on how to handle the fact that the forest in many cases is presumably burnt out.
If it weren't for the fire I'd be tracing a lot of natural=wood in the region. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:56 AM > To: Russell Deffner > Cc: 'Murry McEntire'; 'Paul Norman'; 'hot'; 'OSM US Talk' > Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update > > natural=wood is the obvious way to me. It's what I use here in Ottawa, > Canada. > > On 14/06/2013 11:19 AM, Russell Deffner wrote: > > Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he > > and I have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the > > most local expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM > > To: Paul Norman > > Cc: hot; OSM US Talk > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: > > > > What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag > natural=wood? > > There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, > > but I'm not sure how to handle them. > > > > I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. > > It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the > > Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in > > the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to > > build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer > > a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also > > largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential > > lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to > > fit the definition of landuse=forest of "Managed forest or woodland > plantation". > > > > The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood > > certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can > > complement it. natural=wood "Woodland where timber production does not > > dominate use." > > > > > > How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the > > Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what > other maps do. > > It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping > > can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open > > space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly > > forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not > in this area. > > > > I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to > > change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to > > be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? > > I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-) _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
