2017-10-27 0:49 GMT+02:00 Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>: > I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't been > managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western world. > Even in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest or Borneo the locals use > wood for tools/fire/building etc. >
isn't there a difference between using the wood that grows naturally (without being planted) and growing wood for using it? > > Ignoring the landcover argument for a moment, all areas of trees should be > primarily tagged as natural=wood. I can't ignore the landcover argument in this context, and still believe the natural= key should mean: "a geographic feature", not "something natural" (as opposed to artificial). I would tag a peak with natural=peak regardless of human intervention, it's a peak. In this sense, natural=wood means a "wood", and as not all areas of trees are woods, I'd question this statement. > As with other entities, any further details which gives clarity should be > provided in sub-tags. > as always, all tags should make sense, subtags are for further details, not to adjust/relativise the meaning of the main tag. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
