2011/9/3 Johan Jönsson <[email protected]>: > +1 for using one tag for the whole forested area. > Maybe something along the scheme of natural=wetland, wetland= {more detailed > desc.} Maybe natural=woodland?
no, woodland is an area with less dense trees then in a forest (it is a special ecological type): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodland I'd rather use the distinction natural (topographical feature), landuse (actual use of land) and landcover (actual physical coverage). The value for a forest could be "forest" (for landcover I used to use "trees"). In further iterations we might want to distinguish different types of forests with subtags (there is already some like type=coniferous/broad_leafed/palm/mixed and wood=deciduous/evergreen/shrubs/mixed but this doesn't yet give good criteria for distinguishing e.g. the Brasilian rain forest from a central European mixed forest). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
