You cant confidently split trees into two groups, although Ordnance Survey have tried to. I believe in the future there will be a desire to give areas of woodland a tag that describes the type of woodland. But there is not rush and Evergreen, Deciduous and Mixed seem like a safe start
Jason Cunningham 2009/8/8 Mike Harris <[email protected]> > Sympathy from a pom! Deciduous and evergreen are orthogonal. Coniferous is > not even quite a sub-set of evergreen as there are a few deciduous > conifers, > e.g. larch. So OSM to use evergreen vs. deciduous and show its innate > superiority to OS? > > > Mike Harris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Liz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 22 July 2009 21:38 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural > worldmapping ... > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote: > > There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of > > trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance > > survey maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and > > has symbols for coppice and orchard. > > Another Venn diagram problem. > Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the alternate is "mixed" > > Liz > living in country covered in mallee, casuarina and occasional eucalypt > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
