On 16/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com>: >> >> landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered. > > Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention > was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how > it is used by most mappers.
If only there was a good way to assert "typical usage", we might have managed to standardise on it and solve the problem by now. The landuse=forest definition of "area where trees are grown for commercial purposes, expected to be covered by trees by default but often also natural=scrub for about a decade after logging" is fairly typical too. FWIW, that's the definition I've been using in my mapping, as all the others (managed, named, size, etc) seemed very impractical. If everyone adhered to my POV we wouldn't have a problem (sarcasm). But I've given up hope of that happening, so the next best thing IMHO is the landcover=trees reboot, which isn't perfect but which we can hopefully agree on. On 16/08/2015, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > One could argue that natural=trees is a synonym for landcover=trees. That'd work for me as well, it actually sounds much better. But pragmatically I prefer to follow the more popular tag, unless I see some strong consensus for natural=trees elsewhere. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
