On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:24:10 +1000, Liz <ed...@billiau.net> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote: >> Liz, >> I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by >> your >> genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species >> do there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but >> that's >> a bad classification system. That's like saying "this apple is green, >> that >> grapefruit is citrus." >> There are deciduous conifers, and evergreen broadleafs. Coniferous >> doesn't >> even account for all of the needleleaf trees.. The wiki should probably >> be >> suggesting deciduous, evergreen and mixed. . . >> >> Adopting the UNEP-WCMC broad categories [1] would make much more sense >> than >> the current bad wiki suggestions. and adopting the more specific >> categories >> would cover a vast majority of forests. >> The division between coniferous and decidous in Norwegian (european?) maps was originally interesting from an economical point of view, as the value and usage of pine/sprouce lumber and oak/maple is very different.
But as OSM might have even more different usages than old trade maps from northern europe, maybe we should tag in a whole different way? As I now live in Brazil, where I have less then halve a clue what the different types are called, the best for me would be to identify the types of wood by what I can see (broadleaf/needleleaf + evergreen=yes/no + tropical/subtropical/temperated/subartic maybe?) -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
