You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing
OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.
*All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary
tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.
DaveF
On 27/10/2017 08:52, Tomas Straupis wrote:
Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will
not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc),
because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have
tags F1 and F2.
F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale
maps (full country/region).
F2 is for small wooded areas INSIDE other polygons, usually inside
residential, commercial, industrial zones.
This approach ignores utility as such (managed, non managed, natural,
left for full nature cycles as mention in Oleksiy's post). This
information could be added as a sub-tag if needed for some thematic
maps or specific statistical calculations.
What I'm saying is that maybe we should:
1. first decide the PURPOSES of having "tree cluster" polygons tagged
separately.
2. Then PRIORITISE the purposes (based on ACTUAL usage ignoring all
"it could theoretically be used to/for...")
3. and then decide which info goes to primary tag, which goes to
secondary tag(s).
4. And only THEN decide on actual tags (keys, values).
Doing it the other way round will take us back to this forest
discussion as it has been here for the last ten years like discussing
what the words "forest", "wood", "natural", "landuse", "landcover"
etc. actually mean.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
