Also, if a managed woodland ceases to be actively managed, so that it
gradually reverts back to a wild state, does it eventually get
reclassified? There are many places around the world where a former managed
woodland, or cleared farm, has reverted back to forest.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On August 15, 2015 6:18:49 AM "Dave F." <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2015 23:55, Daniel Koć wrote:
I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page,
it's quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because
it's just about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define
as a generic tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper
if it's natural or not ("forest" vs "wood").
Do you agree with this idea?
A system that makes the current confusing set up of natural=wood,
landuse=forest redundant then all for it. Apart from the fact very few
trees areas aren't managed in some form or another, any such distinction
should be sub tagged, & not by using separate, confusing key tags.
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
