On 15 August 2015 14:16:06 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >IMHO it would rather encourage mappers to make more sense out of these >than it is now. I'm myself adding a pointless landuse=forest for every >landcover=trees now (for the renderer), and I guess most other mappers >do the same. I will remove them from non-forests as soon as the >landcover tag becomes visible
Yes, landcover=trees has the notable advantage of being unambiguous, because it only conveys one concept. The other concepts confusedly conveyed by landuse=forest and natural=wood can/should be handled by other tags (landuse=forestry anyone ? :) ). It'll take years if it happens at all, but getting early support from osmcarto will speed things up. -- Vincent Dp _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
