Woods vs Forests

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
71 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Woods vs Forests

Dave F
(Split to a separate thread)

The woods/forest problem is one of the worst tagging cock-ups in OSM.
It's bad enough when alternate values are used to differentiate what is
actually the same object, but in this case it's also the key!

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't
been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western
world. Even in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest or Borneo the
locals use wood for tools/fire/building etc.

Ignoring the landcover argument for a moment, all areas of trees should
be primarily tagged as natural=wood. As with other entities, any further
details which gives clarity should be provided in sub-tags.

Approach 2 is the appropriate example:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest,

The four render options on the website render wood & forest primary tags
the same

DaveF

----------
On 26/10/2017 13:37, Janko Mihelić wrote:,> A problem i find is with
landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are used for growing
trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for any land that is
covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't overlap with
other zones, but practically, until a new tag (landcover=trees) is
rendered, this rule isn't going to be followed.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Oleksiy Muzalyev
On 27.10.17 00:49, Dave F wrote:
> [...]
> I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't
> been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the
> Western world. [...]

There is a theory nowadays that woods should be left alone to natural
cycles which may last hundreds of years. At least that a forest is not a
park where everything should be cleaned up and tidy. Dead wood in a
forest is the food for numerous insects. These insects are the basis of
a biodiversity pyramid. Here is some information on it:
http://blogs.helsinki.fi/deadwoodmeeting/files/2016/02/Barbalat_dead-wood-insects_web.pdf

Best regards,

O.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Warin
On 27-Oct-17 04:51 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

> On 27.10.17 00:49, Dave F wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't
>> been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the
>> Western world. [...]
>
> There is a theory nowadays that woods should be left alone to natural
> cycles which may last hundreds of years. At least that a forest is not
> a park where everything should be cleaned up and tidy. Dead wood in a
> forest is the food for numerous insects. These insects are the basis
> of a biodiversity pyramid. Here is some information on it:
> http://blogs.helsinki.fi/deadwoodmeeting/files/2016/02/Barbalat_dead-wood-insects_web.pdf
>
> Best regards,
>
> O.

For thousands of years the Australian Aborigines have used fire to
manage their lands.
There is a view that current fire dangers in Australia are a result of
the lack of regular fire burning practices.
There is also the view that these burning practices encourage native
vegetation.
And yet another view that these burning practices would discourage
introduced weeds.
There are many who want regular patterned fire burns conducted for the
above reasons.

Having said that, there are at several areas that have not been managed
by humans by fire for many, if not thousands of, years - one where the
Wollemi Pine was found and a few where cycads remain in central and
northern Australia.

------------------
My view;

The landuse key is clearly to tag the use of the land by humans.

The natural key is unclear - it seams to be for both things made by
nature and things made by man! To me this confused all and the key
should be discouraged.
It should be replaced by the keys landcover and landform, these have no
implication of human or nature but simply describe the type of feature.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Tomas Straupis
Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will
not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc),
because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have
tags F1 and F2.

F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale
maps (full country/region).
Topology: They cannot overlap with other general landuse polygons:
water, reservoirs, riverbanks, meadows, scrub, sand, residential,
commercial, industrial zones etc.
Usage:
cartography: when generating small scale map we get a topologically
correct mosaic - non overlapping polygons - we do not have to worry
about overlapping polygons, draw order.
statistics: used to calculate percentage of forest coverage for a region

F2 is for small wooded areas INSIDE other polygons, usually inside
residential, commercial, industrial zones.
Topology: They MUST be above (fully inside) residential, commercial or
industrial polygon. If the F2 forest area is too large to be included
in say residential area - change it to F1.
Usage:
cartography: ignored for small scale maps. for large scale maps
(detailed small area) they are drawn on top of residential, commercial
and industrial areas.
statistics: ignored when calculating percentage of forest coverage.

This approach ignores utility as such (managed, non managed, natural,
left for full nature cycles as mention in Oleksiy's post). This
information could be added as a sub-tag if needed for some thematic
maps or specific statistical calculations.

What I'm saying is that maybe we should:
1. first decide the PURPOSES of having "tree cluster" polygons tagged
separately.
2. Then PRIORITISE the purposes (based on ACTUAL usage ignoring all
"it could theoretically be used to/for...")
3. and then decide which info goes to primary tag, which goes to
secondary tag(s).
4. And only THEN decide on actual tags (keys, values).
Doing it the other way round will take us back to this forest
discussion as it has been here for the last ten years like discussing
what the words "forest", "wood", "natural", "landuse", "landcover"
etc. actually mean.

--
Tomas

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Warin
On 27-Oct-17 06:52 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:

> Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will
> not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc),
> because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have
> tags F1 and F2.
>
> F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale
> maps (full country/region).
> Topology: They cannot overlap with other general landuse polygons:
> water, reservoirs, riverbanks, meadows, scrub, sand, residential,
> commercial, industrial zones etc.
> Usage:
> cartography: when generating small scale map we get a topologically
> correct mosaic - non overlapping polygons - we do not have to worry
> about overlapping polygons, draw order.
> statistics: used to calculate percentage of forest coverage for a region
>
> F2 is for small wooded areas INSIDE other polygons, usually inside
> residential, commercial, industrial zones.
> Topology: They MUST be above (fully inside) residential, commercial or
> industrial polygon. If the F2 forest area is too large to be included
> in say residential area - change it to F1.
> Usage:
> cartography: ignored for small scale maps. for large scale maps
> (detailed small area) they are drawn on top of residential, commercial
> and industrial areas.
> statistics: ignored when calculating percentage of forest coverage.
>
> This approach ignores utility as such (managed, non managed, natural,
> left for full nature cycles as mention in Oleksiy's post). This
> information could be added as a sub-tag if needed for some thematic
> maps or specific statistical calculations.
>
> What I'm saying is that maybe we should:
> 1. first decide the PURPOSES of having "tree cluster" polygons tagged
> separately.
> 2. Then PRIORITISE the purposes (based on ACTUAL usage ignoring all
> "it could theoretically be used to/for...")
> 3. and then decide which info goes to primary tag, which goes to
> secondary tag(s).
> 4. And only THEN decide on actual tags (keys, values).
> Doing it the other way round will take us back to this forest
> discussion as it has been here for the last ten years like discussing
> what the words "forest", "wood", "natural", "landuse", "landcover"
> etc. actually mean.
>

In; F1 there are the words "general landuse polygons"

F2 there are the words "residential, commercial, industrial zones" that clearly imply land use.

So your discussion is clearly about land use? Fine - that is ok.

I have an area that is used for recreation - picnics, walks, etc. It is a designated "National Park".
So human land use is 'recreation'. There are native animals in there .. but the plan of management is primarily for 'recreation' and has been for many decades.

Some of the area is grassed, some trees ... but the human use of the land is not 'grass' nor 'trees', but 'picnic', 'walks' and 'peace and quite'.

At the moment there is no declared landuse tag on this area, it does have a admin boundary for the National Park, which could also in this case be used for the land use. It does have separately tagged land covers of paved, unpaved, trees, grass and water. But the single land use should be recreation.

As the 'use' is separate from 'cover' these things should be considered separately.




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Daniel Koć
In reply to this post by Warin
W dniu 27.10.2017 o 08:36, Warin pisze:

> The landuse key is clearly to tag the use of the land by humans.

It's also to indicate use of the water, hence it's not 100% clear and I
understand why some people don't like it.

> The natural key is unclear - it seams to be for both things made by
> nature and things made by man! To me this confused all and the key
> should be discouraged.
> It should be replaced by the keys landcover and landform, these have
> no implication of human or nature but simply describe the type of
> feature.

Let's look at natural=tree - it doesn't matter if the tree was seeded by
man or by natural means, the tree is natural object, which was not
created by man (even GMO is about _modyfying_, not creating). There can
be however man_made=tree - we have a popular artwork in Warsaw, which is
a palm made of plastic (tagging has changed, but it's a nice example):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greetings_from_Jerusalem_Avenues
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1795659661

Landcover is neutral (what one can see on the surface). I like it
because it's closest to the "ground truth", and is very useful when we
don't know more details. However we could promote "surface" tag as a
primary and it would also make sense for me (currently it's defined as
additional tag: "used to provide additional information about the
physical surface of roads/footpaths and some other features").

I have no idea what "landform" can be, so I don't have an opinion on that.

However "natural" key for trees (
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=trees maybe?) sounds
perfectly valid for me.

--
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Dave F
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing
OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.

*All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary
tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.

DaveF

On 27/10/2017 08:52, Tomas Straupis wrote:

> Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will
> not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc),
> because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have
> tags F1 and F2.
>
> F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale
> maps (full country/region).
>
> F2 is for small wooded areas INSIDE other polygons, usually inside
> residential, commercial, industrial zones.
>
> This approach ignores utility as such (managed, non managed, natural,
> left for full nature cycles as mention in Oleksiy's post). This
> information could be added as a sub-tag if needed for some thematic
> maps or specific statistical calculations.
>
> What I'm saying is that maybe we should:
> 1. first decide the PURPOSES of having "tree cluster" polygons tagged
> separately.
> 2. Then PRIORITISE the purposes (based on ACTUAL usage ignoring all
> "it could theoretically be used to/for...")
> 3. and then decide which info goes to primary tag, which goes to
> secondary tag(s).
> 4. And only THEN decide on actual tags (keys, values).
> Doing it the other way round will take us back to this forest
> discussion as it has been here for the last ten years like discussing
> what the words "forest", "wood", "natural", "landuse", "landcover"
> etc. actually mean.
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

James-2
landuse= man made and maintained
natrual= it made itself(which is 99.9% of the time the case)

On Oct 27, 2017 5:27 AM, "Dave F" <[hidden email]> wrote:
You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.

*All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.

DaveF

On 27/10/2017 08:52, Tomas Straupis wrote:
Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will
not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc),
because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have
tags F1 and F2.

F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale
maps (full country/region).

F2 is for small wooded areas INSIDE other polygons, usually inside
residential, commercial, industrial zones.

This approach ignores utility as such (managed, non managed, natural,
left for full nature cycles as mention in Oleksiy's post). This
information could be added as a sub-tag if needed for some thematic
maps or specific statistical calculations.

What I'm saying is that maybe we should:
1. first decide the PURPOSES of having "tree cluster" polygons tagged
separately.
2. Then PRIORITISE the purposes (based on ACTUAL usage ignoring all
"it could theoretically be used to/for...")
3. and then decide which info goes to primary tag, which goes to
secondary tag(s).
4. And only THEN decide on actual tags (keys, values).
Doing it the other way round will take us back to this forest
discussion as it has been here for the last ten years like discussing
what the words "forest", "wood", "natural", "landuse", "landcover"
etc. actually mean.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Dave F
2017-10-27 0:49 GMT+02:00 Dave F <[hidden email]>:
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western world. Even in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest or Borneo the locals use wood for tools/fire/building etc.


isn't there a difference between using the wood that grows naturally (without being planted) and growing wood for using it?


 

Ignoring the landcover argument for a moment, all areas of trees should be primarily tagged as natural=wood.



I can't ignore the landcover argument in this context, and still believe the natural= key should mean: "a geographic feature", not "something natural" (as opposed to artificial). I would tag a peak with natural=peak regardless of human intervention, it's a peak.  In this sense, natural=wood means a "wood", and as not all areas of trees are woods, I'd question this statement.

 
As with other entities, any further details which gives clarity should be provided in sub-tags.


as always, all tags should make sense, subtags are for further details, not to adjust/relativise the meaning of the main tag.
 
Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Tomas Straupis
In reply to this post by Warin
> In; F1 there are the words "general landuse polygons"
>
> F2 there are the words "residential, commercial, industrial zones" that
> clearly imply land use.
>
> So your discussion is clearly about land use? Fine - that is ok.

  No. It is about virtual layers, calculated from OSM data for
cartographic, statistical or maybe some other use cases.

> I have an area that is used for recreation - picnics, walks, etc. It is a
> designated "National Park".
> So human land use is 'recreation'. There are native animals in there .. but
> the plan of management is primarily for 'recreation' and has been for many
> decades.

  My understanding is that all parks (national/regional and local
ones) are on a "higher" level "different GIS layer". That is on the
ground you still have a forest, water, meadow, rock, whatever. And
then on TOP of that you have an area of a "park". If you're interested
in parks - you render them on top of forest, meadow etc. objects. But
if you're not interested in parks you skip park objects and should
still get a good result with forests, meadows etc.
  Also if you're calculating how much forests there is in a region,
you want forests. It is not important if that forest is IN the park,
or not. You can simply ignore park objects.

  Or in other words, park is something I must KNOW. It is not
something I can see from say the airplane.

--
Tomas

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Oleksiy Muzalyev
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 27.10.17 12:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
[...]

isn't there a difference between using the wood that grows naturally (without being planted) and growing wood for using it?

[...]

Now woods are being planted also for the renaturation. Here is, as an example, an information board of the project of the renaturation on the river l'Hermance between the bridges Pont Neuf and Pont des Golettes https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pont_Neuf_(Hermance)?uselang=fr#/media/File:Pont_Neuf_GE_10.jpg .

The river was canalized several decades ago, and now it is being returned to its original state, including woods along the river. It is practically impossible to tell if it is a natural or man-made forest, unless one knows it is a result of the renaturation.

Best regards,

O.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Tomas Straupis
In reply to this post by Dave F
2017-10-27 12:25 GMT+03:00 Dave F wrote:
> You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing
> OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.

  If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically
correct, we would have to "cut out" (create multipolygons) for each
small wood areas with 10 trees inside say residential area.

> *All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary tag.
> All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.

  Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my
topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise.
  What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy.
  OSM tagging comes AFTER that.

--
Tomas

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Dave F

On 27/10/2017 11:49, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
>    If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically
> correct, we would have to "cut out" (create multipolygons) for each
> small wood areas with 10 trees inside say residential area.

Well, depending if it's a communal area or privately owned (& whether I
can be bothered), I have done that. People don't, generally, live in trees.

Referring back to your previous comment about not overlapping; you
appear to assume that 'landuse' is being used as the key.

The confusion of having two primary 'keys' for the same object is my
main point.


>    Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my
> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise.
>    What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy.
>    OSM tagging comes AFTER that.

As I map & tag what I see in reality; could you expand on what you mean
by "virtual hierarchy"?

DaveF



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Tomas Straupis
>>    Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my
>> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise.
>>    What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy.
>>    OSM tagging comes AFTER that.
>
> As I map & tag what I see in reality; could you expand on what you mean by
> "virtual hierarchy"?

  When you create a map (not a GIS database), you start with hierarchy
of objects which you're going to display. After that you specify what
exactly each of those items in the hierarchy is in your datasets. So
in the beginning you define an abstract reason/purpose, only then you
specify technical details (f.e. tags).
  I call this a virtual hierarchy of information.

  I do understand that a number of different approaches currently
exist in OSM. You could look around, see some objects which seem
interesting/important to you and then tag them by your best knowledge
using natural language concepts. And that is a problem, because even
with English speakers those "natural language concepts" are subjective
for a number of different reasons. So when we combine a set of
objects, tagged by different people with different subjective
understanding it is very hard to make a logical system which is
essential for quality use. And it also introduces too much arguing
later as we can see with this ten year long forest topic which is
nowhere close to agreement... even not closer than it was ten years
ago.

--
Tomas

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Warin
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 27-Oct-17 09:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I can't ignore the landcover argument in this context, and still believe the natural= key should mean: "a geographic feature", not "something natural" (as opposed to artificial). I would tag a peak with natural=peak regardless of human intervention, it's a peak.  In this sense, natural=wood means a "wood", and as not all areas of trees are woods, I'd question this statement.

A peak, yes. But where the entire hill is made from the tailings of an open cut mine (very large - both the hill and the mine) I don't think it can be said to be 'natural'. It is man made.
And this particular peak is prominent in the surrounding landscape, it is used as a tourist view point for the district.

 
As with other entities, any further details which gives clarity should be provided in sub-tags.


as always, all tags should make sense, subtags are for further details, not to adjust/relativise the meaning of the main tag.
 
+1

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Warin
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
On 27-Oct-17 09:49 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:

> 2017-10-27 12:25 GMT+03:00 Dave F wrote:
>> You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing
>> OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.
>    If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically
> correct, we would have to "cut out" (create multipolygons) for each
> small wood areas with 10 trees inside say residential area.
>
>> *All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one primary tag.
>> All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.
>    Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my
> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise.
>    What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy.
>    OSM tagging comes AFTER that.
>

What you are talking about looks to be the rendering into layers and
which layer comes higher than the other.

That is the choice of the render and what could be higher in one
rendering could be the lower in another rendering.


Within the data base of OSM the distinctions need to be clear between
these classifications so there is no cross over, no confusion.

Which classification is 'higher' than another has no effect on how it is
stored in the OSM data base.

And tagging is about the storage of things in the OSM data base - trying
to make it clear, organised and usable for both tagger and render.



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Warin
In reply to this post by Dave F
On 27-Oct-17 08:25 PM, Dave F wrote:
> You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which,
> seeing OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.
>
> *All* groups of trees are 'natural' so there should only be one
> primary tag. All "purposes" should be within sub-tags.
>
>

Your definition of 'natural' must be different for mine. :)

A tree that is grown in a nursery from grafted stock, planted and
nurtured in a green house and then finally planted outside ... to me is
not 'natural'.
A 'natural' tree grown from a seed that comes off a tree by natural
means, falls to the ground and than grows without human interference to
full size.

--------------
? "All "purposes" should be within sub-tags. "
Umm  so you would remove landuse? landuse=residential would be a subtag
.. under what?

I think landuse is a good classification and should remain.
Areas used for forestry should be able to be tagged under a landuse tag.
If the present landuse=forest is confusing then change it .. to, say
landuse=forestry.



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Warin
In reply to this post by James-2
On 27-Oct-17 09:17 PM, James wrote:
> landuse= man made and maintained
> natrual= it made itself(which is 99.9% of the time the case)

Two different things.

'landuse' does not imply man made, but the use of the land.

'natural' implies made by nature, and this is hard for a mapper to be
certain of.



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Warin
In reply to this post by Daniel Koć
On 27-Oct-17 08:21 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
>
> I have no idea what "landform" can be, so I don't have an opinion on
> that.

Some land forms;
peak
cliff
saddle
ridge
valley

>
> However "natural" key for trees (
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=trees maybe?) sounds
> perfectly valid for me.
>
And not to me.


Does it still sound valid for a flower bead that is replanted with fresh
fully grown flower plants each year?

Or would that be better tagged as landcover?


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Woods vs Forests

Tomas Straupis
In reply to this post by Warin
2017-10-27 22:44 GMT+03:00 Warin wrote:
> What you are talking about looks to be the rendering into layers and which
> layer comes higher than the other.
>
> That is the choice of the render and what could be higher in one rendering
> could be the lower in another rendering.

  While I agree with you on a theoretical level, I cannot come up with
any example of different order depending on "renderer" when we talk
about BASEMAPS (as opposed to thematic maps). Can you help me and give
an example?

P.S. Roads (or other objects) depicted wider/larger than they really
are for visibility overlapping building polygons is not enough,
because the problem here is that something is exaggerated on purpose.

--
Tomas

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
1234