On Saturday 15 August 2015, Dave F. wrote: > Hi > > Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not > it needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
The question is how much is actually gained from this when landuse=forest and natural=wood are practically identical anyway and mean the same, namely 'this area is densely covered by trees'. Rendering landcover=trees as well would just further fragment tagging. The suggestion of using landcover=trees is generally based on the idea that both landuse=forest and natural=wood have a distinct meaning and there are tree covered areas which are neither of these. But in reality this is not the case and due to the widespread use of these tags it is likely this will never happen, it would require a systematic re-assessment of millions of features. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
