What would be an appropriate tag for a patch of trees that are kept for aesthetic purposes?

Something like this:

Specifically, it is a patch of trees in the middle of a parking lot acting as a sort of traffic island. There could be patches that are larger, or smaller. These are the following tagging options that I’ve come across:

  • natural=wood: this doesn’t seem entirely appropriate, because it’s not necessarily a patch of forest left to naturally grow — it is managed for aesthetic/functional purposes.
  • landuse=forest: This seems possible, but it seems more targeted at large managed forest areas for forestry purposes like logging.
  • Many instances of natural=tree: This seems like a really poor descriptive option for the area.
  • landcover=trees: This seems like the best descriptive tag, but, from what I’ve seen on the wiki, it almost seems to be discouraged, so I’m not 100% sure.

Another example would be this patch of trees lining the side of the road:

3 Likes

The natural key unfortunately includes many features which are not “naturally grown” at all - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_keys_and_values#Typically_natural - for example every stormwater retention pond and every canal is “natural” in OSM.

So don’t let that stop you from using the common natural=wood tag.

There might also be regional variations in tag usage - can you share what country and/or province/state this is in?

4 Likes

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for more gory details.

In particular different people have different opinion how this tags are distinct, resulting overall in no real distinction.

1 Like

natural=wood is fine for a small patch of woods like the second photo in your post. At a certain point if there are only a few trees, the patch becomes too small to really be considered “woods” and I would instead map it as several natural=tree nodes, or a natural=tree_row if the trees are in a line. Or I might just not bother mapping it as anything. The first photo appears to only have about 5 trees and is pushing the limit of what I would consider “woods”.

3 Likes

Are there any specific objections regarding landcover=trees?

I see no good reason to have third tag saying “this is a tree-covered area”.

Also, it has basically no support.

In addition, original landcover proposal was having a silly idea of mass deprecating existing tags, and some of this idea remained.

afair this is not the case, by the time the tagging that should have been discouraged (only three tags were named: natural=sand, natural=mud, landuse=grass) was not used in such high numbers as it is now.

It proposed deprecating natural=water at some point

This one was definitely widely used.

No, it was considered to discuss natural=water, the actual wording was:

it would actually be logical to have landcover=water and natural=lake/sea/ocean… but I am not sure about the benefit of a change to a tag so extensively used. Comments?)

also consider that by the time (2010), while natural=water was already very popular, the tag water=* was not yet established or used.

I meant that part. This qualifies to me as “proposed deprecating natural=water” but I am not a native speaker.

(And I have not remembered that part about natural=coastline - this is even worse)

EDIT: (“landcover=water and natural=lake/sea/ocean” seems to propose replacing use of natural=coastline by landcover=water natural=ocean areas)

If not already mentioned above, at 5K use per TagInfo: natural=tree_group | Tags | OpenStreetMap Taginfo … And No, it’s not rendered in Carto S.

2 Likes

I don’t see anything about natural=coastline

They natural key classifies objects which normally grow or develop naturally. Wood does grow naturally, even if it’s managed or planted by man. So natural=wood is perfect for a woody area of any size and form.

Well clearly everyone should start using one of the three projects that actually look at that tag :smiley:

4 Likes

Hi

natural=tree_row
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree_row

" Support for landcover=trees was declined in OSM Carto together with landcover=grass, due to duplicating far more popular tagging schemes"
Please, see it here, in " Support in editors and data consumers":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees

natural=coastline is only for coastlines and the delimitation of the islands