On Monday 20 Jul 2009 17:08:30 Andrew Ayre wrote: > I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia > definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here that are inside an > administrative boundary called a National Forest where the trees are > very sparse - 10s of meters between them. Elsewhere in the forest the > trees are dense but it is a gradual transition from sparse to dense that > could take 50 miles or more to travel through.
The point is that we won't ever find a useful correspondence between real "out there in the world" uses of "Forest" and "Wood" (which are already very inconsistent), everyone's individual perceptions of the difference, dictionary / encyclopedia / professional definitions, and the reality of the slightly chaotic OSM tagging. The division of landuse and natural, forest and wood, is utterly pointless. Hence my proposal to only use natural=wood, and allow further tags to designate the type of tree, whether it's used for commercial logging, etc. Regards, Tom _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
