So putting to one side arguments about the inherent value of trees, British arboreal imperialism and Xybot tricks...
Why do we care if something is a wood or a forest? Why do we care whether or not it's managed, and whether we all have the same sense of what "managed" means? Back in the good old days of stream vs river there was a clear need for maps to distinguish between them. We now have a nice range of water features from riverbank and river to stream and drain. Surely the basic, universal need is "there are some trees here, they're called Sherwood Forest"? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural) In addition you can add in: * type=deciduous (so we can all see what sorts of trees to expect) * landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for commercial reasons) I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema. Then, as always, a combination of wiki documentation, Mapnik & ti...@home rules, Xybot mischief and peer education could disseminate this sensible approach. Every time I try to map a walk up a hill I get depressed by the lack of comprehensible tags supported by renderers to get the map anywhere near as useful as Ordnance Survey. Regards, Tom _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
