On 31-Oct-17 07:54 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 31.10.2017 07:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:> one tag for what? An
area with trees? A forest? How would you define> "forest"?
One tag that can be used for mapping both the things currently mapped as
landuse=forest, and the things currently mapped as natural=wood.
Whether that is a tag for "forest" or for "tree-covered area" is a
worthwhile discussion. But going beyond that and asking for a precise
definition of "forest" seems like an almost impossible requirement, and
I'd rather have a less than perfect definition than no change.
this is really a non-issue, just evaluate these 2 tags the same way and you’re
done.
That's an easy way out for data consumers, but not for mappers. When
mapping forests, you are currently forced to make a distinction that you
may not care about and that you may not even be qualified to make: You
can't just map a forest without also including a statement regarding its
naturalness or use for forestry purposes.
Presently the tag natural=wood within OSM means any tree area, it can be
'natural', 'unnatural', 'managed', 'unmanaged',
'used for forestry', 'not used for forestry' or anything else you can dream of!
A problem comes from the name "natural" that to most people (including mappers)
carries a meaning that excludes some meanings accepted in the OSMwiki definition.
For this reason it would be better to use a tag that carries no distorted
meaning, say landcover=trees for instance.
Evaluating both tags the same way removes data that some have correctly tagged,
if they were rendered differently these differences will motivate mappers to
tag with more care.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
