I can see this tag is stil in a proposal status. In a way the definition is quite clear "any area covered with trees, regardless of it being natural or not, in a forest or in a park/garden". This is what normal OSM mapper can see and map.
I don't like "trees" so much - its sounds a bit strange for large forests areas (those are forests), much better for smaller area covered by trees. But ok. I don't see a big advantage to use both tags - landuse=forest and landcover=trees. Because they will be used more or less for same areas. ... I like "landuse=highway" proposed as well. Regards, Martin On 25 November 2015 at 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2015-11-25 0:16 GMT+01:00 colored stone <[email protected]>: > >> Anyway (respecting definition and practical meaning), the transformation >> of RABA-KGZ data to OSM using landuse=forest tag should be correct. > > > > what do you think about additionally adding landcover=trees? > > Cheers, > Martin >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
