On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood... > > what happens to the remaining landuse=forest? > Will that finally be recognised as the same as natural=wood and be > migrated to natural=wood??? >
Ideally, if we get landuse=forestry and it eventually renders, landuse=forest would be deprecated and slowly replaced when a mapper encounters it. It's a misbegotten tag that has been used inconsistently. It was intended to mean what the suggested landuse=forestry means, but has largely been used to mean what natural=wood means. landuse=forest is wrong two ways. A forest is not landuse. You might be able to justify landcover=forest but that's already dealt with by landcover=trees. You might be able to make an argument for natural=forest (a big wood) in the same way we draw a distinction between rivers and streams. The only way it can be considered landuse is if the land is used for forestry, but then we have the mismatch with natural English which is part of the reason it was misused and part of the reason people keep proposing landuse=forestry. Any migration would have to be on a case-by-case basis. If land used for forestry is tagged as landuse=forest it should (eventually) be migrated to landuse=forestry. If not used for forestry then landcover=trees or natural=wood. But all that requires that this list and the carto people manage to get all our shit in the same sock. Maybe it's worth a formal proposal for landuse=forestry suggesting dual-tagging as an interim workaround for it not being rendered, with a later clean-up. Because we're going to keep coming back to this one until we finally do something about it. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
