Craig Wallace wrote: > Anyway, originally there was 2 tags: > natural=wood - for (mostly) unmanaged areas of trees/woods/forest > landuse=forest - for managed areas of trees/woods/forest > > The landuse=wood tag is more recent, and seems to be somewhere in > between. ie for somewhat managed trees. > If I remember correctly,, one of the previous discussions on this was provoked by a bot changing "landuse=wood" instances to "landuse=forest" - that may explain why there are relatively few "landuse=wood" examples around (683 vs 261k according to osmdoc).
As for "natural=wood", I've never seen anywhere in the UK that is truly "natural" woodland, although some areas have a bigger claim than others. In reality like a lot of things it isn't really black and white. As long as people are mapping the boundary of woodland, it's all good - the tags can be tidied later. > But this tag is not as well supported by the editors or renderers, and > has hardly any usage compared to the other two. Mapnik and Osmarender both render landuse=forest and landuse=wood as (differently) green. For me Potlatch renders both as grey. The cyclemap does omit landuse=wood, but that's entirely its perogative. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
