On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 04:20, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
One suggestion that I've made here before is explicitly to use > "landuse=forestry" for areas that may or may not have trees on them, if > the areas with trees within have been mapped separately > You're not the only one to have made that suggestion. It makes a lot of sense, since the original intent for landuse=forest was for forestry and the natural language/OSM mismatch is one reason the tag is often used for a different purpose than intended. I've mapped several areas of trees where the OS_OpenData_StreetView layer shows a different extent than is visible in aerial imagery. - sometimes a lesser extent, sometimes a greater extent. And in some of those cases where the OS layer is larger than visible in aerial imagery, the aerial imagery shows a fence matching up with the OS layer AND what appears to be tree stumps or scrub or young trees or whatever where the two views disagree. If I map the visible extent of the trees, years from now somebody will have to change the outline to match new growth. If I include tree stumps then somebody might change the outline the next day to match what is visible. Having landuse=forestry that really does mean forestry (as opposed to landuse=forest that was intended to mean forestry but rarely does) would deal with some of the issues. It would be up to the mapper to decide whether it's worth the hassle of using landcover=trees to show the current extent of trees. [...] > That renderer also processes landuse=forest the same way - see > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44018882 and > > https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=53.21319&lon=-1.18217 > for an example of that. > And there's the rub. The standard carto ignores landuse=forestry. Which means that people end up tagging for the renderer by using landuse=forest or natural=wood. Because woodland is tedious to map and there's no point going to all that effort if it's not going to render. It's unrealistic to expect most mappers to use landuse=forestry unless it renders. Around and around we go. This list cannot agree on approving landuse=forestry because it doesn't get rendered. The carto people refuse to render landuse=forestry because nobody uses it. Sometimes the semi-anarchic nature of OSM tagging can be very frustrating. There are days when I yearn for joined-up thinking. How about... I expect it will get shouted down for many reasons, but... What if we suggest in the wiki that where trees are used for actual forestry people are encouraged to dual-tag with landuse=forestry + natural=wood on the basis that with enough usage the carto group will render landuse=forestry AND that when they do there will be an effort to remove natural=wood when it appears in combination with landuse=forestry. What was I thinking? That might actually get us somewhere, and we wouldn't want to do that. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging