Talk:Tag:landuse=logging

Not a landuse

I suggest only using the proposed subkey logging=* on areas tagged with landuse=forest, landcover=trees, natural=wood and abandon landuse=logging. It makes no sense to see "logging" as a landuse of its own, most forests are logged and it makes (IMHO) no sense to differentiate at the landuse level. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree here. The tag describes a part of the forestry life-cycle, and as such it conflicts with landuse=forest. As a forest life-cycle is longer than e.g. on farmland, a sub-tagging would make sense, which can cover the other life-cycle sections as well. The page proposes natural=scrubs for reforestation areas, which is illogical both with the key and the value, there are no scrubs but young trees, and the reforestation is not natural but planted. --Polarbear w (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that we not use "landuse=logging". In addition to the reasons already cited I would add that logging is transient - in a given area the logging is probably completed within a few months. One might as well tag a farm field "landuse=corn_harvesting". Regarding "natural=scrub" some areas are more or less permanently vegetated with low growing woody plants species that will never reach tree height. In those areas I think "natural=scrub" makes sense. Tekim (talk)

The distinction between trees and other woody plants is by species, not by height. A tree can also be 10 cm high. --Dieterdreist (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Weakly defined tag with overlap

This tag wasn't proposed or discussed on the tagging mailing list, and you can see it: there is no good definition and the tag is questionable as a whole (see above) for its overlap with well established tags. I propose to discourage its usage. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of the existing tag landuse=forest. I'll be blunt - it should be removed, redirected to landuse=forest. Warin61 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

man_made=clearcut

I just discovered the existence of this "landuse=logging" tag via a discussion on the openstreetmap-carto repo. I have been using man_made=clearcut for these purposes, combined with natural=scrub. 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) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)