John Smith wrote: > > > --- On Mon, 20/7/09, David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com> wrote: > >> Indeed, in most developed countries, I would suggest that it is >> very rare for trees to be naturally occurring or not managed in >> some way. > > I've no idea about most developed countries, but I'm confident that > not all of Australia has been logged or managed, and I wouldn't be > surprised if some parts of Canada haven't been logged or managed > either.
And I bet these would be tagged as "forest" by most people (because they are big and called things like "Wombat Forest"). Don't you think there is an absurdity in landuse=forest name=Oak Wood (area < 1 hectare) and natural=wood name=Amazon Rain Forest (area > 10000 sq km) Now, I would tag it that way if that was the "spec", but there is no spec for OSM, so as I said I suspect most people do what "feels" right rather than try to determine the tagging according to some usually undeterminable criterion of "naturalness". David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk