Or make Highway=trunk a little brighter green, so it stands out against the wood even more.
On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:59 AM, johnw <[email protected]> wrote: > If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees > on the ground", then the current implementation of forest - the bright green > with tree markers - should probably use the same color of "wood" green, as > they are all just a large amount of trees. The forest still uses the the > tree icon overlay, to show usage, just like Nature Reserve has the NR > overlay, or Zoo with the Z overlay. > > If we're gonna seperate conditions on the ground from usage, then it seems > that having a single color that means "trees" is a good idea. > > That would also free up a more visible green for another use on the map, > maybe something distinctly manmade, like crop=rice, crop=corn, > crop=vegetable, etc. (and leave the brown for wheat). Just an idea. > > > There are large sections of cleared and replanted cedars here in Japan, and > it is actively logged - so it has a different land use - but it is al just > hills covered with trees. The only time most people notice or care about the > difference is in winter, when the cedars stay dark green and the native mixed > maple forest loses it's leaves - the mountains become grey and black striped. > > Javbw > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:18 AM, Andrew Guertin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 09/24/2014 01:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> 2014-09-24 18:22 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> landcover=forest anywhere there's trees on the ground >>>> >>> there is already a proposal in the wiki and the key is in use: >>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover#values >>> >>> please not ~10k trees vs. 11 forest (i.e. factor 1000) >> >> Sure, landcover=trees does seem better. >> >> I wrote that out because it had been bouncing around in my head for a while, >> but I hadn't put much research into it. I'm not surprised people have >> pointed out problems with it (though I still think it's a good starting >> point and an improved version would be a good way to fix our problems). >> >> --Andrew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
