I've used natural=woods for areas formerly in agriculture that were not naturally growing in with trees. This seemed more appropriate than forest as they are not really being managed for harvest.
I could go either way on the National Forest tagging issue. While technically they are managed as forests, they are certainly internally quite heterogenuous in terms of the landuse to the point where many areas are not actually being managed as tree growing areas. James On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 21:06 +0200, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > > Assuming we keep landuse=forest for the National Forests, what would > you suggest we use to tag the areas that are actually covered by > trees? > And how should we render these so they can be seen as different from > areas without trees that happen to be part of a National Forest? > > Wolfgang > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us