I've recently been thinking about how to map areas such as the Forest of Bere[1] which is an area of woodland comprised of smaller sections each with their own name. Ideally I think that the forest should be mapped as a separate entity so that a search for "Forest of Bere" would return the whole area whilst "Upperford Copse" would return only the relevant bit.
My initial thoughts were to create a multipolygon (natural=wood, name=Forest of Bere, ...) using the outline of the smaller areas but while I'm perfectly happy to overlap landuse (military, park, school, golf course, etc.) with landcover (woods, water, etc.) I'm not so sure that overlapping landcover with landcover is such a good idea. There is also a complicating factor in the form of several woodland clearings which are currently unmapped. If you speak to people on the ground they generally consider such areas to be "in the forest" despite the lack of trees. Perhaps place=locality or place=forest would be a better fit? Has anyone dealt with a similar issue? I'm hoping that someone will help me see the wood for the trees! [1] http://osm.org/go/euoc4tP5-- -- Regards, Andy Street _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
