Proposal talk:Key:habitat

• Please any comments, this is my first proposal user:Hawkeyes

Wow, someone read what I wrote! In principle I think this & what I've done on Plant Community should be merged. Habitat is a rather catchier name for the key, and more likely to be understood (lets not go down biotope vs. habitat). I particularly like the emphasis on a gradation of finer & finer mapping, which was part of what I was interested in achieving, but reading this realise had not made at all explicit. A couple of years ago we were offered loads of habitat shape files, but as they were based on OS mapping had to refuse, this may change and masses of good quality data may become available. For now I think it's sensible to keep the two pages running side by side, so that ideas can develop. The real proof of the pudding would be doing some real world mapping to see what works. SK53 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are waiting for comments, you should start the RFC. Concerning the tags, I prefer plant_community=Salicion albae, because taxon=* is already in use for individual plants, e.g. taxon=Salix. I think that you better omit tags like habitat_ref:p1hs=A1.1.1 or plant_community:nvc=W6, because nobody knows these codes. A tag like habitat=broad-leaved_semi-natural might be more comprehensive, but such values seem both arbitrary and ambiguous, so they are essentially unusable. --Fkv (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to create a bit more simplified scheme for general tagging of wooded areas https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/BushmanK/diary/35616

--BushmanK (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)