On 15/08/2015 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
... And then there are areas where actually trees grow, sometimes in a forest and sometimes elsewhere. That's where landcover trees seems appropriate for me.
Maybe a diary entry explaining your point of view on this in detail would help here - specifically real-world examples of something that is "landcover=trees" but not "natural=wood", and what meaning you think "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest" have? Pictures you've taken of the areas would be really helpful too.
FWIW when I looked at tree rendering (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/35220 ) I did look at the usage of landcover, with a view to incorporating it in the script the handles tree types there simply wasn't enough usage of it locally to even consider it (see http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/landcover=trees ).
Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
