sent from a phone
> Il giorno 10 mag 2016, alle ore 19:55, Mike Thompson <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent: > * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged > natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree > on. > * Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest > Service) - seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on > this one. > * How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural > secondary growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words, > all treed areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and > tags indicating the origin of the trees be added where this information is > known. > * How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus on > a more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above. +1, and we also have names (for forests, woods, etc.) that don't coincide perfectly with where trees grow, where forestry is the landuse etc. (i.e. those are toponyms that should have their own geometry, at least it should be possible on a semantic level to have them as distinct objects where necessary), also nested. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
