deprecated is just someone's opinion, as is the suggested alternative.
Though by not following the crowd it may be a feature is created that is
useful on the map.
natural=wood is the widely used tag for a wood (over 65,000 of them and
currently rendered widely. landuse=wood by comparison has
2009/7/20 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com:
natural=wood is the widely used tag for a wood (over 65,000 of them and
currently rendered widely. landuse=wood by comparison has never been
widely used (only 214 occurrences currently). landuse=forest (why not
natural=forest? just history)
landuse=forest - actively managed trees,
natural=wood - natural woodland
Surely logically the options are
landuse=forest - large area of actively managed trees,
landuse=wood - small area of actively managed trees,
natural=wood - small area containing naturally occurring trees
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:55:54 +0100, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Surely logically the options are
landuse=forest - large area of actively managed trees,
landuse=wood - small area of actively managed trees,
natural=wood - small area containing naturally occurring trees
natural=forest -
Ed Loach wrote:
landuse=forest - actively managed trees,
natural=wood - natural woodland
Surely logically the options are
landuse=forest - large area of actively managed trees,
landuse=wood - small area of actively managed trees,
natural=wood - small area containing naturally occurring
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Of course, determining whether your average bit of woodland
in the UK is
Maybe these tags exist for other parts of the world too?
I'm not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure not all areas in Australia has been
logged or managed and
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Indeed, in most
developed countries, I would suggest that it is very rare
for trees to
be naturally occurring or not managed in some way.
I've no idea about most developed countries, but I'm confident that not all of
John Smith wrote:
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Indeed, in most developed countries, I would suggest that it is
very rare for trees to be naturally occurring or not managed in
some way.
I've no idea about most developed countries, but I'm confident
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Now, I would tag it that way if that was the spec, but
there is no spec for OSM, so as I said I suspect most people
do what feels right rather than try to determine the
tagging according to some usually undeterminable
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:26 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Indeed, in most
developed countries, I would suggest that it is very rare
for trees to
be naturally occurring or not managed in some way.
I've no
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:35 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/7/20 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com:
natural=wood is the widely used tag for a wood (over 65,000 of them and
currently rendered
Most people don't consult
the wiki
pages: if they think it is a wood they tag it as a wood. And
I'd contend
that most people think something is a wood because it is not
big enough
to be a forest, though I have no real evidence other than
common sense
and the widespread use of it for that
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote:
Although logging may be prohibited currently there may have
been
logging activity before the area was designated as a
wilderness area.
We keep getting the tree hugger ads on tv about protecting what ever section of
rain forest that
2009/7/20 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com:
Depending on your perspective (and who your boss is). ... according to
tree-huggers, all trees that are standing SHOULD be protected, and
designated as a national park. :) ... tree's were there way longer than
people, and should be more
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Of course, determining whether your average bit of woodland in the UK is
landuse or natural is fun, given that pretty much all of it has been
carefully managed at soem stage over the past few hundred years! Why do we
care
2009/7/20 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Of course, determining whether your average bit of woodland in the UK is
landuse or natural is fun, given that pretty much all of it has been
carefully managed at soem stage over
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
In my mind, something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cricketbatwillow/825730972/
is managed forest and landuse=forest
But something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sequella/425687849/in/photostream/
is mostly
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cricketbatwillow/825730972/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sequella/425687849/in/photostream/
Ummm is it just me or do they both look like plantations used for logging?
The only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Harald Kleiner a écrit :
Hi Stéphane,
Hi to all contributors of this thread!
What a nice confusion I created! It wasn't my intention.
In keepright I refer to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Deprecated_features
Excellent I don't
19 matches
Mail list logo
