pmailkeey wrote: > johnw wrote: >> Forest=natural ? >> isn’t that natural=wood? > I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest!
landuse=forest and natural=wood are a poor example for historical reasons, when some thought that natural=wood together with landuse=forest was "redundant", when it's not: an area used for forestry can be without tree cover (after a full chop it takes anything from years to decades before the newly planted trees look and function like a wood/forest, yet the usage of the land is still growing wood for timber). That's why the keys of the tags are different, so that one can tag both/all of them. We can live with the tags as they are used and documented now, but they shouldn't be used as a good example for future tagging. There are no man made trees in the forest, they all grow naturally. In osm a single way or node can be different "things" to different consumers. If one is interested in the usage of the land, they look at the landuse key, if they're interested in what natural features occupy the area, they look at the natural key; sometimes there's an implied, mostly undocumented relation between the two and sometimes the other key is omitted. There can not be a strict choice between "is this one or the other", but mappers can describe only those aspects they see and care about. Data consumers, interested in something which they care about, can consider the probabilities of other related tags implying yet unstated features: for example, many places of worship already entered in osm coincide with the buildings they occupy, but people have only tagged amenity=place_of_worship. Given a pile of stones or pieces of timber stuck together, only human interpretation makes it a building, but we also give those piles other meanings; pub, shop, address, ruins. Just tag all and every meaning that make sense for that way or node. -- alv _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
