On 29/10/2017 21:42, Warin wrote:
And then when the trees are harvested in a forestry operation the tag
natural=wood could be removed with the result that the land use would
be lost..
Irrelevant, it could also be removed if it were landuse=forest.
until such time as the tress grow again then the natural=wood could be
reintroduced, but then the land use would have to be rediscovered and
then retagged.
Again, could be the same for landuse=forest.
At the moment landuse is a separate main tag and is not subservient to
another tag. That should remain.
Why?
I see that some might see a necessity of tagging tree areas with both
landuse=forest and natural=wood.
Why?! They're the /same/ thing.
However the one does not imply the other, to the extend that I only
tag the landuse=forest and leave off the natural=wood.
To repeat, they're the same entity.
Then there may be others who see natural=wood and think that their
area of trees are not natural by their definition so falsely use
landuse=foresty under the impression that any tree are that is
'managed' is suitable for landuse=forest.
Solutions?
For the landuse=forest problem?
A) ?
Change the definition of landuse=forest to exclude the word 'managed',
Forest does *not* mean 'managed'. Never has, never will.
Some will object to the change of meaning of such a 'frequently used
tag', no mater how confusing it may be.
It's been "frequently" misused. Most have used it without any
understanding it's implied meaning.
As I indicated before Approach 2 is most appropriate.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
