On 24/11/2015 15:22, Greg Troxel wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> writes:
2015-11-24 15:43 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel <[email protected]>:
So if you have landcover data that says there are trees, that's
natural=wood
I'd tag landcover=trees. There are different ideas about what constitutes
the meaning / requirement for the key "natural",
I'd be quite happy with that - and the larger idea that each space has
at most one landcover and at most one landuse.
As an aside, it should perhaps be stressed that almost no-one (apart
from the person who suggested it above ) uses the tag
"landcover=trees". Here's for example is a randomly-selected
significantly-covered-by-trees area:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cUp
The contradictions in tree tagging are referred to here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest
I'm sure that it's fair to say that "natural=wood" is used _more_ to
describe "here be trees" than "landcover=trees". Although the former, on
its own, is used by other mappers to mean other things, the fact that
there's ambiguity means that the only conclusion that can be drawn from
"natural=wood" is "here be trees".
What we're missing, of course, is something to describe areas used for
forestry where there may or may not currently be trees...
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
