torsdag den 7. juni 2018 21.13.22 CEST skrev Tod Fitch: > > On Jun 7, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Michael Andersen <o...@hjart.dk> wrote: > > > > For many years now I've been pretty happy to use landuse=forest pretty > > much > > everywhere I found a group of trees. Yes, in some cases the semantics > > irked me a bit, but landuse=forest always rendered fine. I used what > > worked for me. > > > > On many occasions however I've seen newbies remove or retag landuse=forest > > areas as the very first thing they do after registering. "It's not a > > forest" (whatever that means) they argue, even if the area in question is > > completely covered with trees and sometimes even has "forest" as part of > > the name. On some occasions it's been a real hassle trying to explain > > that landuse=forest basically just means that the area is covered by > > trees, no more, no less, and that we use it because this is what renders, > > not because the semantics are perfect. > > > > So what I'm trying to illustrate is that while I'm happy to use > > landuse=forest myself, I do see a practical problem with it; Newbies > > taking it a bit too literally. If landcover=trees would render, I imagine > > it would make my job a lot easier. > > Your use of landuse=forest is exactly opposite of my interpretation of > previous discussions on this email list. > > I happily started out tagging areas covered with trees as landuse=forest > until there was a long thread here about how that was incorrect. There was > a very vocal contingent that stressed that landuse=forest was for areas > being managed to produce wood products and that one ought to use something > like natural=wood if one simply wanted to show there were trees on it. > > And then I came across areas that were tree covered but definitely not > natural and not something that should be tagged as an orchard, etc. This > has led me to prefer landcover=trees and landcover=* in general to describe > what I see on the land without worrying if it is natural or not. > > Now, for tree covered areas I use: > > natural=wood > landcover=trees > > I feel that the natural=wood is tagging for the renderer but I do it anyway. > And I feel that landcover=trees is a more accurate description of what is > there and hope that someday it will be rendered on the standard map. > > Cheers!
Yeah, I used to be way too busy mapping to care about mailing lists etc (apart from the danish), so for years I was largely ignorant of that sort of discussion. Also the vast majority of wooded areas I map fits pretty nicely with the hardline definition of landuse=forest and the rest are usually too much of a grey zone to bother. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
