On 31.10.2017 07:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:> one tag for what? An area with trees? A forest? How would you define> "forest"? One tag that can be used for mapping both the things currently mapped as landuse=forest, and the things currently mapped as natural=wood.
Whether that is a tag for "forest" or for "tree-covered area" is a worthwhile discussion. But going beyond that and asking for a precise definition of "forest" seems like an almost impossible requirement, and I'd rather have a less than perfect definition than no change. > this is really a non-issue, just evaluate these 2 tags the same way and > you’re done. That's an easy way out for data consumers, but not for mappers. When mapping forests, you are currently forced to make a distinction that you may not care about and that you may not even be qualified to make: You can't just map a forest without also including a statement regarding its naturalness or use for forestry purposes. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
