7. Jun 2018 21:13 by t...@fitchdesign.com <mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com>: > 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. > BTW, this different approaches are discussed at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
