While surveying i crossed a small isolated field about 300 metres square ( not part of a large forest ). On Bing and other maps it is well wooded and mapped as a forest. On the ground half of the field is bare and i suspect may become more truck parking while the other half as what looks like christmas trees of <50cm. Forests are a landmark when navigating so forest does not seem correct to me so should it be a plant nursery or something else? http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.33627/-0.29386

asked 05 Jul '16, 07:45

andy%20mackey's gravatar image

andy mackey
11.8k74126260
accept rate: 4%

edited 05 Jul '16, 07:47


Did you perchance take a picture? From your description I think that landuse=plant_nursery would indeed be the correct tag.

Although it's also possible that a forest was clear-cut and is now being replanted, once it's grown back to "looking more like a forest" then landuse=forest would be more appropriate, but I agree that it seems an odd tag to apply to knee-high trees.

permanent link

answered 05 Jul '16, 07:52

Lightsider's gravatar image

Lightsider
1.5k52129
accept rate: 42%

edited 05 Jul '16, 07:58

Is there a tag like landuse=bushes or something similar?

(05 Jul '16, 10:49) Ukraroad

There's natural=scrub wich is often useful.

Note that to many people, landuse=forest means forestry activity. It implies tree cover (natural=wood) if nothing else is specified (like natural=scrub), but it is still valid even when the trees have recently been cut.

Especially when dealing with coniferous trees (which grow fast), it's hard to keep track of actual vegetation maturity in forestry areas. Satellite imagery often take longer to be updated than it takes a scrub to turn into a forest.

(05 Jul '16, 11:29) Vincent de P... ♦

If it was part of a big forest, so now a clearing, i would probably leave it as a forest but it's not higher than rapeseed or corn crop so to have a wood on on the map would be misleading.If it is going to be cut at 1.5 metres for christmas trees it will never be a landmark.

(05 Jul '16, 16:14) andy mackey

I would tag it as a regular forest. One of the largest oak forests in the US is in Monahans Sandhills State Park in West Texas. When mature the shin oaks can reach up to 4 feet (< 2 meters).

(05 Jul '16, 22:13) Longhorn256

Thanks, i looked them up, we live and learn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_havardii

(05 Jul '16, 23:41) andy mackey

I tend to map "places where trees are, have been, or are going to be grown" as landuse=forest, so this would include your "knee high trees" as well i suspect.

There's a proposed tagging scheme for forestry (in Russian) here. I found out about it via the comments on a diary entry - some of the other comments there are worth reading too.

permanent link

answered 06 Jul '16, 00:20

SomeoneElse's gravatar image

SomeoneElse ♦
32.2k63333753
accept rate: 15%

Classification of real world is fraught. If your intention is to make the information useful to ded reckoning, it could be agriculture/forest products. If for landscape analysis (e.g., total of this and that in a jurisdiction, etc), it could depend on the zoning and/or owner (gov't private, etc).

I think it depends on the purpose of OSM? Does anyone know the answer? I'm just starting and am looking for fundamentals like that.

permanent link

answered 07 Jul '16, 17:03

robinottawa's gravatar image

robinottawa
90126
accept rate: 0%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×33
×6
×4
×1

question asked: 05 Jul '16, 07:45

question was seen: 1,520 times

last updated: 30 May '18, 20:58

powered by OSQA