On 20.08.2014 19:45, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Wood: Woodland with no forestry > Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation. > > In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem > to be so much confusion?
I believe some reasons why this topic comes up repeatedly are: 1. The definition wasn't always like this. It used to be that all forests were natural=wood and land used for forestry would additionally get tagged landuse=forest. 2. The current definition is problematic because it does not allow simply mapping "forest" – you are forced to also map some distinction that is not necessarily visible on the ground and that you may not be interested in at all. (Unlike, say, an optional managed=yes/no would.) So people might choose one of the two at random. 3. This distinction feels unusual for people in countries where traditional maps use other factors to distinguish different wood signatures, e.g. broadleaved/needleleaved. The little pine-like icons in the landuse areas seem somewhat confusing in that regard, too. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
