W dniu 17.08.2015 4:10, Martijn van Exel napisał(a):
But after some discussion I realized that this may be a side effect of
a different problem, namely how we tag national forests. In the US,
these seem to be tagged as landuse=forest which is only partly true:
within a National Forest, many
For me, forestry is the production of wood, using trees. So a 'forestry
area' would include mature trees, young trees, saplings, fresh plantings
and places where the trees have been removed.
I think that is what is meant by landuse = forest
On the other hand there are areas that are covered in
On 17.08.2015 00:29, John Willis wrote:
This is the crux of the landcover argument.
Because landuse=* implies what the land is used for - therefore man-altered
and decided usefulness. natural=* was then interpreted by taggers to be the
opposite - the natural state of the land which was
Then we can create some biome tags to handle more complex tagging, but being
able to define commonly encountered landcovers is necessary.
My city has huge flood control embankmnets along the natural river in certain
places. There is abandoned sections of asphalt and concrete in patches in odd
