On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > > > > > 13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > > I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not > help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster. > > > Exclude landuse=residential areas. > > > So my current idea is to create > > > (landuse=forest + natural=wood) - landuse=residential > > > and calculate its area.
ok, thanks, pretty complex. Would be way easier with landcover = forest :-) > > and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping > landuse > > > It is certainly OK to have overlapping areas with landuse=residential > (records landuse) > > and landuse=forest (records landcover). unless landuse=forest does not overlap any other landuse in which cases it might be a landuse (depending on who mapped it), not ? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
