1.11.2011 22:33, Jaak Laineste kirjutas:
Jah, mis uuem/õigem on seda kasutaks. Ma kuulsin forest/wood sellist eristust
esimest korda ja seega olengi see, kes seda suvaliselt on kasutanud.
Kopeerin lõigu vikist:
landuse <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>=*forest*
+name <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=<name of the forest>
+type
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:type>=coniferous/broad_leaved/palm/mixed
+wood
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wood>=deciduous/evergreen/shrubs/mixed
Rendering
Green area. When wood <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wood>=* is
set, show little broad leafed or coniferous (or both) icons.
Attention
When tagging woodland, two approaches are advocated by different groups:
Approach 1
* Check if the area is "managed maintained or industrial used forest".
This is almost always the case in Europe, with an emphasis on
"managed maintained". Only very small areas are really left
untouched and can be considered wild boondocks, primeval forest,
virgin wood, national parks etc.
o If it is managed forest, set landuse
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>=*forest*.
o If it is primeval woodland with no forestry use, where nobody
removes dead trees, plants new trees etc, set natural
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=wood
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood>.
--------------------------------------------------
Neid lähenemisi on seal veel kaks, me võiks aga sellest esimesest lähtuda.
- M -
_______________________________________________
Talk-ee mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee
