On 8/19/2015 2:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land
cover (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or
administrative to clear the confusion. I am also in favor of
eliminating the landuse=forest tag at least in its current incarnation
and switching any official forested areas to boundary tags.
I think most of us would agree that having trees across an area with
few or no trees looks weird. Yes, I know - don't tag for the render,
blah blah. But it seems like it would make sense if we kept wood and
forest areas separate. Since natural=wood and landuse=forest virtually
render the same now, they should be treated differently than they are
currently.
As this isn't US specific, you should probably raise this on the tagging
list.
One of the few areas of forest tagging where there is consensus is that
a US "National Forest" does not get a landuse=forest tag. Fortunately,
we're getting towards having fixed up many areas in the US where this
was made. Beyond that, there are many opinions on where to use
natural=wood and where to use landuse=forest, none of which are
universal. This is why OpenStreetMap Carto renders natural=wood the same
as landuse=forest. It's also intentional that trees are present on the
rendering everywhere that one of these is tagged.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
