On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote:
> > I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to > indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts? > >From the last seven or eight times this has come up in the past couple of years... 1) Somebody says we ought to make a distinction between trees that are for timber production and trees that are not. 2) The word "forest" is wrong for timber production. Because of the vagaries of English it should be "forestry" as forests are not always for timber production. It's also syntactically better English. 3) As always we have the problem of all the landuse=forest that has already been mapped that would have to be checked. Which is another argument for using landuse=forestry and hoping landuse=forest eventually fades away. 4) People bring up various objections to landuse=forestry. Some insist that we absolutely must stick with landuse=forest and its unfortunate ambiguities. Others argue that we shouldn't make any distinction and that every group of trees should be natural=wood whether it is used for timber production or not. 5) The argument then rapidly goes downhill, no agreement is reached, and we drop the issue until the next time it comes up. 6) I get even more cynical than I was the last time the issue came up. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging