On 08/06/18 19:05, Peter Elderson wrote:
Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest,
but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on
the map.
natural=wood works... and is 'free' of the land use requirement.
The word 'natural' has been taken to mean anything in OSM .. sigh.
So natural=wood is much bette thatn landuse=forest.
Landcover is a much clear meaning and can be used for 'natural' and
'unnatural'.
So I normally combine it with anything that is tagged 'natural'.
2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com
<mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:
8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com
<mailto:lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:
- 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"
Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of
landuse=forest to be a misuse.
It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging