On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's feature X that's too weakly defined. The question you're really > asking here is what is meant by forest? I think most people are > interpreting it as an area of land covered by trees, in which case a > lake is certainly not forest.
This is beginning to sound a lot like "if a road goes through a forest, does it split the forest in two?". Is a park with lots of footpaths actually many little parks separated by footpaths? You're right, this discussion isn't going anywhere useful :) > This is mainly the difference between logical areas, and actual > physical features. So maybe forest is just a really bad tag at the > moment and being constantly "misused". Possibly. I thought we were trying to input logical data, because converting logical->physical is easy and from physical->logical basically impossible. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
