Is natural=scrub suitable also if there are almost no trees or bushes but predominating grass and dry branches? What about natural=heath or others? Or even without additional tag? Please see the attached pictures. --*Martin* (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- It seems a logical approach to use natural=heath combined with man_made=clearcut in terms of size of plants but maybe not for the type of plants, it may confuse botanists? I admit I've been using it already and i came here to check if there is any discussion. I'm no woodman but i think it would be useful to have an earlier step because apparently some trees take a long time to become a shrub and then a noticeable tree.
- I take the occasion to say that in my opinion natural=scrub should have never been set to be used for clear cuts. It conflicts with the fundamental purpose of the natural=* key, meaning: elements with minimal human intervention, left to a natural ecosystem... I would prefer to use landuse=forest combined with man_made=clearcut because in essence if trees are still planted, it's still a forest. The rendering would have made it look different. ALso, it would make the mapping easier.
- - SHARCRASH (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- For me .. a clear cut exists for some period of time. Then either the area regrows naturally,is planted out or adapted for some other purpose - like a new town. So man_made=clearcut .. well it is a form of land cover, and it should only be there for a short period of time. then it evolves in to something else like landcover=shrub (natural=shrub). I don't think dual tagging is appropriate, it is tagging for the render. Warin61 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Tag not established, not proposed and not really fitting into man_made
Similarly to cutline, but significantly more, this tag does not fit well under the man_made key. The well established man_made tags are all about technical features, facilities or installations (e.g. factories, storage tanks). "clearcut" is either about an event (someone cutting trees) or about the absence of trees (someone has cut the trees). This is not the same group of things. As there also hasn't been a proposal, and usage of this tag is relatively low, with respect to all things of this type that exist on the globe and also compared to all landuse=forest or natural=tree, I suggest to make it clearer that this rather a proposal than an established feature. --Dieterdreist (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I am one of those that think land use is for the human use of the land. As such the value forest means that the area is used to produce things for human use like timber. As such the normal harvesting operations may provide a clear cut, this is entirely normal and does not require a change to the tag of landuse=forest on the area. Warin61 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I just discovered that there's also a landuse=forest tag in use, primarily in Eastern Europe and Russia. IMO man_made=clearcut is better than landuse=forest, because it describes what actually happened on the ground, rather than speculating about whether this specific clearcut is likely to be maintained for logging again in the future, or if something else will happen to it. Mappers on the ground won't necessarily know the future plans for this land. In addition, where I live in the Northwest part of North America, there are many places where the land is maintained for logging, but trees are cut down selectively, leaving most of the trees still standing, rather than cutting all the trees via a clearcut (which is also common here). In those cases of selective logging, you could conceivably have an area that should be "landuse=logging" but it's not immediately visible to the naked eye because it hasn't been fully clearcut. Again, this is a reason to prefer the more specific "man_made=clearcut" for the case when all the trees have been cut down instead of the less-specific "landuse=logging" --Alan (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)