On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 13:33, Gustav Foseid<gust...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch <djly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and >> natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it >> with natural=trees, which is just as self-explanitory, and which (to >> this particular mapper) sounds like a better fit for small clumps of >> <10 trees than "wood." > > What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest?
It's still natural=trees. There are just a lot more trees than the smallest bunches. What triggered this was an area not far from me where small stands of trees (too many to pick out individual ones on aerial photos, but few enough that you could count them at ground level) were mapped as "natural=wood." -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
