Just looking at Note: 3443906 | OpenStreetMap concerning Wail SF. By https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/26768/FS0087-Wail-State-Forest.pdf , boundaries are pretty good.
Anybody have an opinion on forest v protected-area?
I suspect that having “forest” in the name is causing some confusion.
Traditionally, in OSM landuse=forest was to be for areas being used to produce wood products. Since forest has mis-used so much it is almost the same meaning as natural=wood and the wiki page has been revised to reflect that. But I would still like to maintain, or restore, the distinction.
From the PDF you linked, it looks like this area is being used for recreation and for resource protection. So I would go for protected area for the area encompassed by the park and then use natural=* as appropriate to show where there are trees, grassland, etc.
1 Like
I think the same, especially for somebody from Europe!
It’s a State Forest, which means it is being reserved for the purposes of forestry. I’m pretty sure that’s the definition of landuse=forest. You could add boundary=forest to make that clear.
1 Like
You might also consider boundary=protected_area on the perimeter closed polygon.
In the states (USA) we have had great difficulty unsnarling the myriad kinds of tagging (whether it’s a forest, whether it is wooded, hey, it might be a rubber plantation, whether it is “protected” at a local, state or national level, whether it is public or private, whether there is a “front-country” of park with parking lots, amenities and more-commonly-used features and a “back-country” which could appeal to hiking / camping / backpacking…). Our United States/Public lands - OpenStreetMap Wiki (full disclosure, I and many others are principal authors) is messy, but it does show how difficult this sort of tagging can get if / as one really wants to be “accurate” with the full panoply of tagging that is available, AND make the cross-product of a biggish country to reflect the massive areas which get some pretty complex tagging (snarls and more and more, unsnarls).
Give yourselves, oh, say, um, about a decade (maybe more) to “get this right.”
I’m with Andrew here. Virtually every other State Forest in Victoria and NSW is tagged using landuse=forest. I’m not averse to systematically re-tagging all the State Forests in Vic and NSW in a different, new way but I don’t see any merit in tagging Wail differently to all the others. Cheers Ian
Traditionally, in OSM landuse=forest was to be for areas being used to produce wood products.
no, the tag was used more broadly, this is one of the meanings people wanted to impose (and failed)
1 Like
Not really, see Forest - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:landuse=forest - OpenStreetMap Wiki
In practice both natural=wood and landuse=forest are for tree-covered areas.
1 Like