sent from a phone
> Am 15.08.2015 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Koć <daniel@koć.pl>:
>
> In my opinion suggestion of using landcover=trees is based on the lack of
> clarity of these tags. Forest suggests it is curated somehow ("landuse"),
> wood suggests it is not ("natural"), but nobody is sure anymore what they
> really mean (see their current definitions!). This is a major problem when
> widespread tags are source of confusion.
>
> However landcover=trees is not a solution for this problem as a whole.
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to the natural
(as in nature) and managed "idea". Usually the distinction between wood and
forest is size and density, the distinction between natural and landuse is
about named entities vs. the usage by man attribute. A group of trees in the
park is sometimes a wood but never a forest. Landcover has a point besides
trees (think grass for instance)
cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
