Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > This is based on relative importance rather than on built-up area or > administrative size or population. > Replied in "size in osm (tag <> size of the polygone)" thread Thanks Graeme ___

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Jan 23, 2019, 9:44 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 19:40, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Jan 23, 2019, 1:11 PM by >> pla16...@gmail.com >> >> : >> >>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Thread drift is common. If your on any internet forums you get used to it. Much like a talk in the pub, can go anywhere while your off getting the next round in, On 24/01/19 18:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 16:52, Marc Gemis > wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 16:52, Marc Gemis wrote: > I wonder how puzzled someone would be when they look at the original > question "how to map scrub in forests" and then, without going through > the whole thread, sees e.g the following mail in that thread: > Yes, way back up there ^ somewhere,

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

I wonder how puzzled someone would be when they look at the original question "how to map scrub in forests" and then, without going through the whole thread, sees e.g the following mail in that thread: p.s. Joseph, please don't take this personally, I could have picked another mail, but yours was

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Chillagoe sounds like a village. It’s “only” 205 km (127 mi) W of the city of Cairns Does it have a secondary school, eg for 14 to 18 year olds? The only town-level service is the “hospital”, but does it really offer full services? > There are another half a dozen other small/er settlements

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 12:09, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/01/19 12:50, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > It’s not possible to have “town” level services with less than 1000 > people. A town has a major market (retail area) serving the surrounding > area, as well as basic educational,

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

I’m in Papua, Indonesia. It’s quite different than Java or Bali. I’ve tagged some places as “towns” with only 4000 or 5000 inhabitants in the most sparsely populated parts around here, because they are the only settlement larger than a few hundred people in an area of 100 x 100 km or greater, and

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 24/01/19 12:50, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: “an isolated "village" with only a few hundred people in it, but which is the main centre for this area will be a town, & maybe even a city?” It’s not possible to have “town” level services with less than 1000 people. A town has a major market

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 24/01/19 12:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 23. Jan 2019, at 22:35, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > According to the wiki, they're not > based on services either.

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

“an isolated "village" with only a few hundred people in it, but which is the main centre for this area will be a town, & maybe even a city?” It’s not possible to have “town” level services with less than 1000 people. A town has a major market (retail area) serving the surrounding area, as well

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 23. Jan 2019, at 22:35, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > According to the wiki, they're not > > based on services either. > > > if the wiki says it explicitly like this we should fix it. > Just looking & it's a mixture, & also a bit of

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

> waterway=stream / river > railway=rail/narrow_gauge > highway=footway/pedestrian These are narrow linear features. It’s unreasonable and less helpful to map these as polygons when a simple linear way will do, so it’s good to have a way to show the difference. And there is also a big functional

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

sent from a phone > On 23. Jan 2019, at 22:35, Paul Allen wrote: > > According to the wiki, they're not > based on services either. if the wiki says it explicitly like this we should fix it. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

sent from a phone On 23. Jan 2019, at 21:44, Paul Allen wrote: >> place=island/islet what was a bad ideas and should not be repeated? >> >> place=hamlet, place=village, place=town, place=city. > > place=hamlet, place=village, place=town, place=city. waterway=stream / river

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 09:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > It would be usefull to know that a scrub area is so dense that it cannot > be walked through, > yet another scrub area is so sparse that a fire cannot propagate without > wind. > > I agree! Those definitions are a pretty good start. > >

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

> It would be usefull to know that a scrub area is so dense that it cannot be walked through, yet another scrub area is so sparse that a fire cannot propagate without wind. I agree! Those definitions are a pretty good start. Probably it should relate to the density of the “canopy” of the main

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 24/01/19 09:12, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: The main OSM map renders grass, trees as solid colours, and residential areas too .. that is not good to me. Another example of the landuse/landcover confusion. We could make an

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 24/01/19 09:06, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:36 PM Paul Allen wrote: Way back in the thread you wrote: OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags. That was Mateusz, not me! Hey .. it was

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The main OSM map renders grass, trees as solid colours, and residential areas > too .. that is not good to me. Another example of the landuse/landcover confusion. We could make an argument that we need a landcover value for

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:36 PM Paul Allen wrote: > Way back in the thread you wrote: >> >> >>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by >> >>> using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags. That was Mateusz, not me! In any case, if the sole determinant for

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 23/01/19 19:37, Marc Gemis wrote: I think in many cases place=location would be fine. Depends on what the name is seen as being. A forest or wood ("bos" (small) or "woud" (for bigger area) in Dutch) is typically an area with primarily trees, but also grass areas, pools, cuttings for paths

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 21:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: Way back in the thread you wrote: > >>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than > by using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags. > To which I responded: >> place=islet vs place=island > And I later

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

>>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by >>> using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags. >> >> >> place=islet vs place=island >> >> >> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by >> using the area or a closed way, >> or

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Jan 23, 2019, 1:11 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 03:15, Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > >> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other thanby >> using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags. >>

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 03:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by > using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags. > place=islet vs place=island -- Paul ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

I'm not talking about large areas like the Black Forest, but smaller forests such as Hondsbossen, https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=sint-kathelijne-waver#map=17/51.07041/4.54562 Typically there is a map of the area near the entrances where the exact area is shown. That map is similar to

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

This idea of a wood or forest as a whole region, rather than the area that actually contains trees, may be culturally limited. I grew up in a town that was surrounded by national forest on all side, but the valley floor had some pasture and residential areas (300 people). Did we live in the

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

sent from a phone > On 23. Jan 2019, at 08:55, Marc Gemis wrote: > > And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the > outer way ? > I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named > area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that >

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

I admit that I am putting it on MP, despite that it would be more correct to put in an outer way with some tagging indicating that it refers to this entire forest. Unfortunately, I have no good idea for tagging it properly. place=locality is rather for small places landuse=logging,

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

I think in many cases place=location would be fine. A forest or wood ("bos" (small) or "woud" (for bigger area) in Dutch) is typically an area with primarily trees, but also grass areas, pools, cuttings for paths and tracks, etc. So I was thinking that natural=wood (or landuse=forest) should only

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Nice question Marc. What is this named area? Does it have some (taggable) function? Is it 'just' a location? place=location? On 23/01/19 18:55, Marc Gemis wrote: And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the outer way ? I would think on the outer way, as the scrub

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the outer way ? I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that correct ? m. On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 23/01/19 18:25, Peter Elderson wrote: The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern. I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest. Main point is,

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern. I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest. Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Jan 23, 2019, 1:00 AM by pelder...@gmail.com: > > Vr gr Peter Elderson > > Landcover tag now approaches 100 000 occurrences. Still growing despite not > being rendered.  I would think rendering the top three landcover values is > not out of place. The github issues are still there.

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

I think there can be no outcome of any discussion about landuse unless the landcover is separated from the landuse first. I think the only way forward is to actually do that first. The growth of the landcover key shows that many mappers think that it's a good idea to map landcover separately. I

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Jan 23, 2019, 4:49 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com >> >> : >> >>> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the >>> landuse=forest

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 2019-01-23 04:14, Warin wrote: > Temperate and Tropical moist/dry are climates... if those are to be mapped > them go right ahead .. but they are not confined to forests, so should be > mapped separately. Those are simply the names biologists give to that forest types.  E.g. "Tropical

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com: The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. The essential difference between the two is that landuse must

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 23/01/19 07:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Jan 21, 2019, 9:44 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood... what happens to

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 23/01/19 11:52, Sergio Manzi wrote: Only about the cited point (/tagging natural forests as natural=wood/), I think a natural forest should be tagged as natural=forest (/quite logically, I would say.../), while natural=wood should be reserved for "small forests" (/which is one of the

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

I would be very happy if more mappers start tagging leaf_type and leaf_cycle. Certainly it is possible to add further detail. In temperate regions one could tag the dominant species of tree in woodlands where the majority of trees are one species, eg Ponderosa Pine or Douglas Fir in the western

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Hi! On 2019-01-23 02:10, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The one thing that’s missing is a tag for the density of the main vegetation > type; is it a dense canopy of trees, or dense scrubland, verses more widely > spaced. Not only that (and the "leaf cycle" thing): again, a forest is not a bunch of

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Oh, and we shouldn’t forget leaf_type=leafless This is used for cactus and other succulents, and it’s currently rendered by the Openstreetmap-Carto style, for wood and forest. Leaf_cycle is rendered by the Alternative-Colors style

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

> the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the leaf_type=* tag You can also use leaf_cycle= to tag deciduous vs evergreen, and also semi-deciduous, semi-evergreen and mixed: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_cycle This accounts for most types of woodland, along with leaf type. The

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Well, sorry, obviously I did an editing mistake and the "/Wikipedia defines 6 types of forest/" phrase jumped up in the wrong place: it should be just above the dotted list of forest types... Sorry about the confusion... Sergio On 2019-01-23 01:52, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Only about the

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Only about the cited point (/tagging natural forests as natural=wood/), I think a natural forest should be tagged as natural=forest (/quite logically, I would say.../), while natural=wood should be reserved for "small forests" (/which is one of the possible meaning of "wood" in English, if I'm

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Vr gr Peter Elderson Landcover tag now approaches 100 000 occurrences. Still growing despite not being rendered. I would think rendering the top three landcover values is not out of place. The github issues are still there. Initially: landcover=trees same rendering as natural=wood and

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 07:10, Tod Fitch wrote: > > Perhaps the way forward would be to change the wiki to indicate that > landuse=forest is deprecated due to its confused usage. Add some text to > the page directing mappers to either landcover=trees if they are simply > mapping the presence of

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 21:10, Tod Fitch wrote: Not rendering landuse=forestry on the default OSM map to reduce “tagging > for the renderer” is an interesting idea. I’ll have to think about that but > it does have some appeal. > It doesn't appeal to me. I'd prefer it to render but in a way that

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Adam Franco wrote: > > As someone who has mapped a lot of landcover & landuse > in my local area, I > welcome sorting out the confusion that is the current state of > natural=wood/landuse=forest. Many

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

As someone who has mapped a lot of landcover & landuse in my local area, I welcome sorting out the confusion that is the current state of natural=wood/landuse=forest. Many parcels around me are managed for forestry purposes but don't have

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest > needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. > The essential difference between the two is that landuse must have some human > benefit, a produce, and a clear

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:39 PM Paul Allen wrote: > I don't know if they have rejected this specific idea, or even if they were > asked. It's just > that they often require that a tag has been used sufficiently in the wild > before they consider > adding it. A commoner objection is that it's

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Jan 21, 2019, 9:44 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood... >> >> what happens to the remaining landuse=forest? >> Will that

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Jan 22, 2019, 8:38 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:14, David Marchal <> pene...@live.fr > > > wrote: > > >> Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and the >> transition process you describe here seems consistent with

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:14, David Marchal wrote: Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and > the transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know > about such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the > main problem for

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Paul, Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and the transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know about such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the main problem for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood... > > what happens to the remaining landuse=forest? > Will that finally be recognised as the same as natural=wood and be > migrated to natural=wood??? > Ideally, if

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 22/01/19 04:29, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:45 AM Paul Allen wrote: What if we suggest in the wiki that where trees are used for actual forestry people are encouraged to dual-tag with landuse=forestry + natural=wood on the basis that with enough usage the carto group

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:45 AM Paul Allen wrote: > What if we suggest in the wiki that where trees are used for actual forestry > people are > encouraged to dual-tag with landuse=forestry + natural=wood on the basis that > with > enough usage the carto group will render landuse=forestry AND

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:45 PM Paul Allen wrote: > Around and around we go. This list cannot agree on approving > landuse=forestry because it > doesn't get rendered. The carto people refuse to render landuse=forestry > because nobody > uses it. Sometimes the semi-anarchic nature of OSM

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 04:20, Andy Townsend wrote: One suggestion that I've made here before is explicitly to use > "landuse=forestry" for areas that may or may not have trees on them, if > the areas with trees within have been mapped separately > You're not the only one to have made that

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 21/01/19 16:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,” I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the British variety). Many speakers of

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

> “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,” I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the British variety). Many speakers of other languages just search for an English word in

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 21/01/19 10:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between landuse=forest and

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 20/01/2019 23:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between landuse=forest and

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between landuse=forest and natural=wood. However, mappers used these two tags

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 21/01/19 05:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal wrote: All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in recently teared down parcels, or scree in the

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

> “an area considered as a forest by authorities” If this is a protected or administrative “forest”, you can use boundary=protected_area with the proper class But we usually try to map what is “real” and “current”. So if there is an area without formal protection, that people call “XXX Forest”,

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal wrote: > All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a > forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in > recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, > although,

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Le 20.01.19 à 19:32, David Marchal a écrit : > The landcover tag? you may of course, despite it's not used by osm-carto (but we don't map for the render, isn't it ?) > Another? map with natural=wood for the area with treet map the scrub area as usual > boundary=forest_compartment? i dislike