On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not > > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often > called "Xyz Forest" > > > interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has > actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require > more trees. > > Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or you're quibbling about the size of a group. Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees. It is a nature reserve and so it is not used for forestry (aka logging). There may be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically logged on a wide scale. This is why landuse=forest is problematical. Sherwood Forest is not land used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it says "forest"). That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good idea. I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in combination with landuse=forestry because what is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or stumps. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
