On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, John Smith wrote: > --- On Sat, 25/7/09, Elizabeth Dodd <ed...@billiau.net> wrote: > > I was really thinking of the trees / forest business > > like how dare you have forest which doesn't fit neatly > > into these international classifications? > > Most commons I know had the trees cleared so stock could graze... If the > trees grew back it's probably not the same thing any more... > > > > > this is what I was recalling, not to do with commons
The UNEP-WCMC spec specifically says "Temperate broadleaf and mixed" covers "the sclerophyllous forests of Australia." I would call both the ecucalypts and eucalyptus broadleaf, the acacia is pretty much a broadlead, and the mixed allows for most of the other stuff to be As both Martin and Tom said, add what's needed to the wiki and the renderers will eventually catch up. I would say starting with the UNEP-WCMC would work nicely, (though it looks like all Australian forests would be broadly classified as the same thing--excluding the "sparse trees and parkland" and "forest plantations") then drilling down to continent/subcontinent specific forest classifications would work. and until he visits us and sees what forests we have - Mallee may well be temperature broadleaf but the canopy doesn't reach 30% - he will just be talking through his hat. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/fp_background.htm# 4 Broadleaf evergreen forest Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, the canopy being > 75% evergreen and broadleaf. and he doesn't know a eucalypt from an acacia either.... _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
