> > Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has > 9[sic!] uses. > I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition not used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules of "we should use the accepted tags in wiki...".
But whatever, as said before, we could take a step by step approach(and test it) : - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest" ; - Then, discuss if we need to add a forestry tag and maybe make a proposal for it. It could probably just be to create a *new *tag, and still use "landuse=forest" when it is *unknown* (like for highway=road when we don't know the type or usage of a road). This would have the advantage of being backward compatible, just introducing a more precise tags for are with know forestry use for example. And most importantly, it would advance the discussion, as most people are probably just looking for the first steps (having landcover=trees in an renderer and presets, while the second part interest probably a smaller fraction of the community (which are more into forest tagging - and i know that some people are interested in Belgium).
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
