On 30/10/2017 17:25, Daniel Koć wrote:
"Although /forest/ is a term of common parlance, there is no
universally recognised precise definition, with more than 800
definitions of forest used around the world."
This is part of the OSM problem - It's been misappropriated as a verb to
indicate that work is performed on a group of trees & also merged to
include a few of those 800 variations (size, density etc). Using
sub-tags some of those numerous definitions can, where appropriate, be
added.
Separating them into individual sub-tags makes it *much* easier &
accurate to filter if required rendering or data analysis.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Definition ]
I think it's hopeless for us to coin good definition.
FWIW, there's already a compatible tag to say: "area with trees", and
that is landcover=trees.
+1 - this one is clear for me.
I'd think natural=wood is adequate (all the main renderers are
displaying it), but if there's a belief another tag is better, then I'd
be happy to go with that as the /real/ problem is OSM is currently using
two different tags (both key & value!) to represent the same entity,
Are any renderers currently rendering 'landcover'?
DaveF
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
