> “an area considered as a forest by authorities” If this is a protected or administrative “forest”, you can use boundary=protected_area with the proper class
But we usually try to map what is “real” and “current”. So if there is an area without formal protection, that people call “XXX Forest”, but it contains meadows, trees, rock and scrub, then map each area separately. You might need to make a multipolygon if there are large areas of woodland with patches of other landcover inside. This lets data users know that the trees end there. On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:54 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote: > > All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered > as a forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like > scrubs in recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These > area, although, clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are still mapped > as such, as they are considered to be part of the forest and are treated > this may, but they are morphologically not the forest: the forest is the > area administratively regarded as such, but it is not always the case; if I > want, for instance, to map them as a scrub area of the forest, as the > polygons overlapped, they are rendered in a mixed way. Is there a > recommended way of handling such cases without broking display? If so, what > are they? The landcover tag? boundary=forest_compartment? Another? > > This again. > > There's a failed consensus here - and you risk reversion with either > decision. > > I tend to follow the principle that landuse=* denotes the land USE, > not the land COVER, so I don't demand that every square metre of > landuse=forest be covered by trees. But many do, and the renderer > follows their inclination. > > natural=wood is a possibility to show tree cover - but that leads some > to argue that it has to be a 'natural' wood - whatever that means. > I've heard it argued that the 'old second growth' forest that's > increasingly common near me is still not 'natural' because a skilled > forester can still find the human impact. (Of course, that was true > even before the Europeans arrived - there was considerable > pre-Columbian human impact on these forests.) > > landcover=trees doesn't render, but is at least unambiguous that it > means tree cover and nothing else. > > landuse=forestry, for a managed forest, has been proposed but received > a lukewarm reception. > > For the state forests and wildlife management areas around here, I tag > at least boundary=protected_area. (Tag with the right protect_class, > and add leisure=nature_reserve if it fits: 'nature reserve' covers a > lot of things.) If I'm mapping land cover (I seldom do), I will use > natural=wood to mean 'tree cover' and let others fight over it. > > But that's just what I do, and I do not argue that it is right. With > the current state of the discussion, which has been in stalemate for a > few years, there simply is no correct tagging, and what I do appears > 'least wrong' to me. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
