On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rendering landcover=trees is not the same as deprecating landuse=forest. > > It just offers the option to tag tree-covered areas on a different landuse > such as industrial, military, residential or commercial. > > I do expect a shift from landuse=forest to landcover=trees, as soon as it > would be rendered. > I know that I would at least remove redundant tagging in that case. I have at least a handful of polygons that are tagged both 'landcover=trees' (what I meant) and 'natural=wood' (for the renderer). It verges on 'tagging for the renderer.' Nevertheless, there is no good definition of a 'natural' wood, so I'd defend the choice at least weakly. The trees weren't planted by human intervention - Mother Nature put them there.. 'landuse=forest' is NOT tagged on those polygons because they are wooded areas that overlap or even coincide with polygons of other land use (residential, industrial, ...). To me, tagging 'landuse=forest;residential' seems nonsensical, even if there is a house on a densely wooded lot. Moreover, the existing renderers for the most part render nothing if a single polygon has a multiple landuse value like that - there's the assumption that each land feature has at most one use. My workplace is one of these; it has a few acres of woodland that are fairly well-preserved old growth. They exist simply because some of the land is on the face of cliffs overlooking a river gorge, and is simply too steep ever to develop profitably.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
