> 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)
Not any more absurd than in my city, where we park our cars in driveways and drive our cars on parkways. Should the strip of pavement connecting my garage to my street be renamed to a parkway, or the tree-lined street be renamed to a driveway? Probably not. How absurd is this: landuse=forest name=Robledales natural=wood name=Selva Tropical Amazónica Both are the same names as you gave. It only looks absurd when viewed through the narrow lens of a particular dialect of English. > Now, I would tag it that way if that was the "spec", but there is no > spec for OSM I disagree. The wiki pages document the intended use of various tags, supported by community consensus and usage. I think you are focusing on the minor part of the tags, "forest" and "wood", and missing the major part of the tag, "landuse" and "natural". They both exist because they have different meanings and intentions. It is also completely legitimate to have both landuse and natural tags on an area. Trying to boil down either Oak Wood or the Amazon to one single tag is an oversimplification. - Alan _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
