<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">There has been similar discussion some time
ago within Slovenian forum. In practice
most of forests/wood area are tagged as landuse=forest in Slovenia. Most people agreed that it would be very
difficult to distinguish “non-managed” areas and tag them as natural=wood. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The original source for landuse import (RABA-KGZ)
is actually named “Agricultural and Forestry Land Use”. The definition of
raba:id=2000 which is transformed to landuse=forest is (short but basic one):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">“<i>Land defined as forests according to the regulations
on forests.</i>” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">It should mean those areas are part of
forest management policy and therefore managed in some way. I know there have
been discussions among forestry and agricultural experts how to define forest
according to this definition and there are some people claiming this is more
land cover than land use. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Anyway (respecting definition and practical
meaning), the transformation of RABA-KGZ data to OSM using landuse=forest tag should
be correct.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Regards,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Martin</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 November 2015 at 17:18, Martin Koppenhoefer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-11-24 16:53 GMT+01:00 Andy Townsend <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" target="_blank">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow:hidden">As an aside, it should perhaps be stressed that almost no-one (apart from the person who suggested it above ) uses the tag "landcover=trees". ...<br></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>actually someone has started adopting this scheme (I found it in areas where I never mapped), and I'm inviting everybody to join in. There's no good reason adding a landuse=forest to any arbitrary small group of trees, besides it has always been done.<br></div><span class=""><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow:hidden">
I'm sure that it's fair to say that "natural=wood" is used _more_ to describe "here be trees" than "landcover=trees".</div></blockquote><div><br><br></div></span><div>yes, no doubt. The more interesting question would be: what does this tag imply. I am sure I would get more consistent answers from any 100 mappers I ask about their interpretation of the tag for landcover=trees and for natural=wood.<br></div></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">cheers,<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Martin<br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Imports mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Imports@openstreetmap.org">Imports@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>