On 15 August 2015 14:23:09 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >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)
This is a perfect example of the confusion around landuse=forest vs natural=wood. Size and density ? Managed ? Named ? Usage type ? The curent osm data is a mix of all these criterias an more; at this stage it is hopeless for the consumer to extract more meaning than 'here be trees'. Landcover=trees is rightly calling these nuances a loss and trying a fresh clean approach. -- Vincent Dp _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
