On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] > wrote:
> of course it is studied. And it surely is usable in some way, but as > far as I have seen (it's 163 pages) it doesn't deal at all with > national parks and other protective areas (that's also logical, as > this is not landcover but legal stuff). A replacement for the tags landuse=forest and natural=wood should, in my opinion, also deal only with landcover/eco systems and not protective areas. A forest (wood, area with trees, whatever) should be tagged as such, no matter if it is inside or outside a national park. I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger forests or areas with forest like eco systems. - Gustav
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
