On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com
<mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
> consistently used by a single organization for anything (and
often called "Xyz Forest"
interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of
trees has actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a
forest would require more trees.
Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote
or you're quibbling about the size of a group.
Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees. It is a nature reserve and so
it is not used for forestry (aka logging). There may
be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically
logged on a wide scale.
This is why landuse=forest is problematical. Sherwood Forest is not
land used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because
it says "forest").
That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
idea. I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used
in combination with landuse=forestry because what
is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings
or stumps.
I am coming around to this way of tagging.
Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
Some are forestry (yea!)
Some are parks ..
Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map
colours ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is
legally allowed in OSM)
Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is
forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
