Proposal:Classification of management on natural area
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| classification of management on natural area's | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Abandoned (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | vussiewussie |
| Tagging: | managed=yes/no/grazing/undergrowth/mowing |
| Applies to: | 
|
| Definition: | Used to indicate if a natural area is actually natural or it is still being managed by humans to keep it in its current state |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | No difference in rendering on normal maps, difference can be made on specific editions |
| Draft started: | 2010-06-10 |
Values for managed=*
- no: there is no management of any kind
- yes: landscape or signs indicate management but kind is unclear
- grazing: herbivores are used to limit the growth of grasses, bushes or trees
- undergrowth: human interaction to clear (a specific kind of) undergrowth e.g. to preserve lane structures in former estates, eliminate introduced species.
- mowing: human (mechanical) mowing is done one or more times per year to preserve the open character of the landscape/water
How to map
Add his key to areas already tagged with a natural=* tag that are meant as nature but still require human intervention to keep the natural values they have. An example could be a fell where young trees are removed to prevent the fell from turning into a forest because large grazers are missing in that particular part of nature.
Open questions
- Is this tag limited to "natural" features?
- What about surface=*?
- Objects like leisure=pitch may also need tag to mark their "maintenance" (unlike virtual operator=* company it will mean "real maintaince")
- Does fully specified operator=* imply managed=yes? (probably not, see above)
See also
- treated=* with 5 instances in database at moment of writing