Joel Holdsworth writes:
...when the whole administrative area is clobbered with green.
What isn't forest shouldn't be tagged landuse=forest, and what is should be. It is not obvious anything administrative (here) is "clobbered with green." It seems semantics are conflated, or I don't understand the problem (around here, NW of Karlsruhe), or both.
If some national forests allow no timber harvesting (even hikers not being allowed to collect downed wood) then OK, remove the landuse=forest tag. Or, better, draw new polygons where this IS allowed and tag THEM landuse=forest. If a whole USFS (unit, polygon...) allows foresting, leave the tag on. We have the ability to tag what we mean, we just don't always have perfect consensus or apply the consensus we do have correctly to existing map objects. I think we are getting there, and maybe even are largely there.
We could benefit greatly by a (sooner) consensus on a landcover syntax and concomitant rendering that applied it, distinct from the Standard layer. That just makes sense as a potential (improvements welcome) path forward. Technically possible, right?
Land cover is not land use (and vice versa). Land cover is not specified by the landuse=* tag.
SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
