> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
Until several years ago the “standard” style
(Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between
landuse=forest and natural=wood. However, mappers used these two
tags interchangeably even then. The rendering was changed to
match actually database usage on a global scale, which is that
both tags are often used to tag any area covered with trees.
The current rendering follows tag usage and the current wiki
page, which also discusses this issue in depth.
I wish it were possible to fix this, but the different meanings
of “forest” and “wood” in various English dialects make it difficult,
even before we add other languages and cultures to the mix.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:04 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 21/01/19 05:52, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal
<pene...@live.fr <mailto: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.
And it will continue to occur!
And reoccur, again and 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.
+1
> 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.)
Those who argue this have no problem abusing the landuse tag,
so I see no reason why the tag 'natural' cannot be similarly
abused.
The OSMwiki for 'natural' even states that is can be used for
human effected things.
>
> 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 forestry area I tag landuse=forest with produce=trees (or
what ever is produced by the area for human use). This makes
it clare that the area is for productive human use.
>
> 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.
I too use natural=wood with landcover=trees to map a tree area.
--------------------------
The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from
natural=wood.
The essential difference between the two is that landuse must
have some human benefit, a produce, and a clear way of doing
that is to add the rendering of a axe to the tree.
______________________________
