Talk:Tag:landuse=wood

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discuss Tag:landuse=wood here:


misunderstanding

landuse=wood has never been used traditionally except as the result of a misunderstanding. User:Sward has created his own definition (of landuse:wood being somewhere in between landuse:forest and natural:wood) and published it here but this has not been discussed and is only rarely used (and where it is used, in most cases not because of this definition but because someone made a mistake).

If User:Sward wants to make a suggestion as to how to further describe the maintenance status of woodland, he's welcome to do so but not by inventing a confusing new tag and writing all over the place that this is "recommended" ;-) --Frederik Ramm 09:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Better guidelines to the classification of the maintenance status would surely be appreciated and would help to reduce the overlap with the forest and wood values. When cases where the tag has been clearly used by mistake are identified, corrective action should be taken. Yet I don't think that it would be a good idea to delete the page, since the tag has been in (limited) use for a long time now, and a definition has been provided. At least, not until a better classification scheme for woodlands has been proposed. --Kaitu 09:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think my only recommendation must have been during other discussion, and by creating this page. I’m not sure that counts as “all over the place”. According to the history I created the page a year ago, I don’t remember. See my comment below.—Sward 19:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the managed natural forest should not be tagged as on this page, instead a subtag like managed=yes should be added, permissible for all natural= keys, than the management issue is covered for all natural area's in one simple solution and also more logical. The key already exists on the wiki (empty) Key:managed, I'll make a first go for clarity about what I mean. So in favor of deletion --Vussiewussie 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against deletion, but before that some issues ought to be discussed more thoroughly. There are several axii for classifying tree infested areas, and too few tags agreed upon to date. I've highlighted below the cases I believe this landuse=wood has been trying to address. Differentiating between all these isn't IMO practical, nor necessary as such, but just tries to show where the agreed upon tags don't suffice. Alv 07:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Median age of trees" never touched untouched for 100+ years only dangerous trees are removed active upkeep of "a diverse, healthy natural forest" active upkeep for tree mass growth
200+ years natural=wood natural=wood
(most can't tell the difference)
 ?

probably inside a boundary=national_park, or other protected area

 ?

probably inside a boundary=national_park, or other protected area - very little management activity, if at all.

landuse=forest, although in reality it would have been cut down already
100-200 years n/a varying uses

probably inside a boundary=national_park, or other protected area

But can also be some patches of wood inside cities

 ?

probably inside a boundary=national_park, or other protected area - very little management activity, if at all.

landuse=forest, although in reality it would have been cut down already
10-100 years n/a n/a varying uses

Esp. some patches of wood inside cities, but also some sections between farm fields

varying uses

Esp. some patches of wood inside cities

landuse=forest
3-10 years n/a n/a n/a varying uses

To become the class above.

landuse=forest
under 3 years n/a n/a n/a n/a landuse=forest + natural=scrub

For example a recent full chop, new trees planted.

(User:Alv 07:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC) )


Great. So there's a wondrous variety of subtle distinctions to make. I'm sure that's true, but speaking as a normal everyday non-forest-obsessed mapper... I don't care! I want one top-level tag to represent this, maybe two, but not three. Of course we can then have all sorts of convoluted properties tags for those who are interested. Also if we were going to introduce a third tag, would it not be better to pick a tag which isn't just some confusing cross-over of the other two tags?
So with that in mind I guess I'm in favour of removing this page (or better, labelling it as a "tag which people use by mistake, to be replaced by landuse=forest, or natural=wood") but I'm confused about how the page came into being in the first place. Does User:Sward have any comment on the matter? Did he create the page by accident? And why did this tag get added to the Mapnik rendering?
-- Harry Wood 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
See User_talk:Sward#landuse=wood?. For what its worth, I agree with comments above about having fewer top‐level tags and further classification with subtags, as far as having only one top‐level tag with a Key:managed subtag, although Tag:natural=wood and Tag:landuse=forest are not going to go away.—Sward 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably missing out on all sorts of fun discussion on the mailing list about woodland types etc. All I'm really seeing here is confusing mess on the wiki. So I think I'll go ahead and start to rectify this situation now, starting with dropping the link from Map Features so that I can see where else this is linked from -- Harry Wood 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK page rewritten labelling this as a "Mistake" tag and de-linked from most places -- Harry Wood 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete the page?

Originally Frederick proposed deleting the page. This would have the advantage of creating red links for anyone attempting to the link here. Perhaps we should do that eventually. For now though we may need to explain to people what's going on with this tag. Better to work on de-linking as much as possible (there's a few incoming links left to deal with) -- Harry Wood 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)