Why not map objective attributes, such as trees per hectare, species,
maybe natural vs managed? If the set of attributes is chosen well, then
people will be able to apply their own criteria as to what is an
"orchard" or a "forest" when consuming the data. After all, OSM is the
data, not the rendered map.
We (a small number of people anyway, on behalf of the whole of OSM, most
of whom are unaware that this discussion is even taking place) are once
again spending a lot of energy trying to get global consensus on the
names people use to call these things, in a language which is not native
to the majority of participants. That seems pretty unachievable to me,
without a solid frame of reference. When the discussion dies down, it
won't be because there is real consensus, just that people have got
bored of the discussion and gone off to do more productive things with
their lives. Until the same subject flares up again at some point in the
future, then it all starts again.
On 2018-06-13 11:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but
> there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses,
> bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything
> specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets
> are generally mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for grove?
>
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a
> forest denser?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
