Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's feature X that's too weakly defined. The question you're really >> asking here is what is meant by forest? I think most people are >> interpreting it as an area of land covered by trees, in which case a >> lake is certainly not forest. > > This is beginning to sound a lot like "if a road goes through a > forest, does it split the forest in two?". Is a park with lots of > footpaths actually many little parks separated by footpaths? You're > right, this discussion isn't going anywhere useful :)
I remembered that as well :-) IMHO when using forest as landuse the road doesn't split it, you are on that road while you are in the forest at the same time. At least that's how I do it for landuse=residential/idustiral, which aren't split by roads either. When there'd be something like natural=trees things would be different. Because there's either tarmac (road) or trees. Same for lakes and other features a landuse would encase and a more specific natural wouldn't. I'm not sure if natural=wood was intended for this, but for me as a German it's not as catchy as natural=trees would be. (though an explicit explanation in the wiki could adjust that) Same for parks. In my terms a park consists of trees, gras, benches, ways, playgrounds and maybe even some buildings housing a cafe or public toilets. So leisure=park wouldn't be split by ways. But natural=gras would be limited by the features (ways) surrounding it. So IMHO some statement like "Natural-areas must not interfere/overlay with any other physical feature"* could clarify this conflict. regards, Sven [*] Landuse isn't physical, put this way. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
