sent from a phone
Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.
you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe an area where
trees have just been logged and will soon be planted
On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
was (yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way -
landuse=wood, natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).
Err disagree,
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it was
(yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way - landuse=wood,
natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).
Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea
On 16/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:
landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
was for that tag was to mean
On 16/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
which landuse is good for an area where trees have just been logged and
will soon be planted again?
landuse=forest, which I've always reasoned of as being landuse=forestry :)
Which landuse value is suitable for an area
where
sent from a phone
Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
would
support such proposal.
how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects? If you
do the latter
On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
would support such proposal.
how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes?
On 17/08/2015, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
was
The problem with that is that the map will be wrong for 5-15 years
(depending on what kind of trees are being grown). I
sent from a phone
Am 17.08.2015 um 17:05 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas.
When would you need that ?
when a forest with a name is part of a bigger forest with a different name
cheers
Martin
moltonel molto...@gmail.com writes:
This is a perfect example of the confusion around landuse=forest vs
natural=wood. Size and density ? Managed ? Named ? Usage type ? The
curent osm data is a mix of all these criterias an more; at this stage
it is hopeless for the consumer to extract more
2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:
landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
it is used by most
I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.
2015-08-16 20:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2015-08-16 19:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original
intention
was for that
2015-08-16 19:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
it is used by most mappers.
which landuse is good for an area where trees
On 15 August 2015 14:23:09 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to the
natural (as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
W dniu 15.08.2015 13:50, Christoph Hormann napisał(a):
The suggestion of using landcover=trees is generally based on the idea
that both landuse=forest and natural=wood have a distinct meaning and
there are tree covered areas which are neither of these. But in
reality this is not the case and
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl:
In my opinion suggestion of using landcover=trees is based on the lack of
clarity of these tags. Forest suggests it is curated somehow (landuse),
wood suggests it is not (natural), but nobody is sure anymore what
16 matches
Mail list logo
