From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

royal hunting and Robin Hood

Just a small point and easy to overlook in British English (en-uk) a forest had a varient meaning as a speacial type of landuse with special laws set aside originaly for royal hunting and leasure purposes so included areas well beyound trees such as heathlands etc.

By the late 20th centry most people associated forests with the like of Robin Hood so the idea about the non-wooded bit began to fade from most peoples minds - unless you lived in a place that was a Named Forest such as the New Forest were there are still special laws appyling in areas beyound the trees.

In the same vain British English also has Copse {for trees regulerly havested above ground level so they regrow from the stumps [action of cutting to copice] & where cattle graze cutting is made higher up and called pollarding - this was also becomeing less common as lots of people gave up wordburning as a major fuel choice] there is also the term spinney for a small group of trees on there own [sometimes encoraged amongst grassland to shade cattle or mark a dip of the land closer to the water table so a spring or well may be there with a cattle water trough.]

--Govanus (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Similarly to the situation in the UK, in Denmark an area might be officially part of a forest, while not being covered by trees (and never intended to be). This can potentially lead to different ways of mapping the "forests" of Denmark, depending on whether you map the physical or the administrative forests. I just checked some of my "favourite" forests, and it seems indeed like both ways are used.
NisJørgensen (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Scheme for wooded areas

My attempt to create clear scheme framefork for tagging wooded areas --BushmanK (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


The present confusion could be reduced if mappers were to use the tag landcover=forest. It does not identify the use nor origin of the forest .. simply that a forest is present. Warin61 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In data modelling sense yes. if mappers were to use... as you say. But the reality would likely be ...just another competing tag.
I see people have made the same point in the wider discussion here: Proposed features/landcover. I wouldn't rule it out completely, but not sure how the transition could happen
-- Harry Wood (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

rename this page as "Forest / woodland"

I think maybe we should rename this page as "Forest / woodland" to make it clearer from the outset. Otherwise the assumption is that this page is for documenting a forest tag (whereas in fact it is about both landuse=forest and natural=wood tags presented evenhandedly).

This is pretty similar to a page I created called "Gym / Fitness centre" to give pointers to different tags there.

I suppose another title which might work would be "Wooded areas" (the term used by BushmanK above)

-- Harry Wood (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Regularly clear-cut forests

Parallel to wrangling on the issue of natural forests and managed forests, there is the issue of tree farms. In parts of the US (and other parts of the world, I'm sure), quick-growing trees such as pine are grown on large farms and regularly clear-cut. The clear-cut land is then reseeded in rows with new trees. In areas where this is common practice, this is often distinct from a "managed" forest, where the forest remains with selective culling. While my initial instinct is to attempt to tag these locations as managed forests using a tagging scheme from this page, many of these areas are in fact devoid of all trees, or consist of large areas of saplings, which doesn't fit neatly into either category. The farmland tag doesn't quite seem appropriate, either Thoughts?

Benjamin Muller (talk)