<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/11/2015 10:36, Pavel Machek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20151127103609.GA27775@amd" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri 2015-11-27 00:41:35, Andy Townsend wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 26/11/2015 22:04, Pavel Machek wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And you _can't_ tag for natural=wood, because if someone uses it for wood
production, that's incorrect.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
You're going to have to explain that one a bit more I think....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
See natural=wood at wiki. "Woodland with no forestry", first sentence.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well - to be clear that change was made in:<br>
<br>
Revision as of 17:06, 18 August 2012 by <a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu"
title="User:Jamicu" class="mw-userlink">Jamicu</a> <span
class="mw-usertoollinks">(<a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamicu"
title="User talk:Jamicu">Talk</a> | <a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jamicu"
title="Special:Contributions/Jamicu">contribs</a>)</span> <span
class="comment">(Edited table remove disputed primeval
requirement)<br>
<br>
</span><br>
It was clearly an attempt to replace the previous contentious (and
inaccurate) description ("Natural primeval woodland") with something
else, but just because someone changes a wiki description it doesn't
mean that the meaning implied when mappers all around the world
mapped stuff changes. <br>
<br>
Also, the simple (and misleading) "Woodland with no forestry"
description that you refer to was actually removed in:<br>
<br>
Revision as of 07:21, 9 May 2015 by <a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny"
title="User:Mateusz Konieczny" class="mw-userlink">Mateusz
Konieczny</a> <span class="mw-usertoollinks">(<a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny"
title="User talk:Mateusz Konieczny">Talk</a> | <a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mateusz_Konieczny"
title="Special:Contributions/Mateusz Konieczny">contribs</a>)</span>
<span class="comment">(Forest. Sometimes considered to have
restricted meaning ")<br>
<br>
<br>
That description is much better - it does go some way to explain
the problem.<br>
<br>
Right now, the authors of OSM's standard stylesheet have taken the
view that "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest" only mean "here be
trees". "landcover=trees"* isn't rendered (though that's
complicated by keys in the current stylesheet). Other renderers
and other data consumers may take other views of course**, but
that would vary by region internationally.<br>
<br>
The key question every data consumer must ask is "what did mappers
think when they tagged things as X", not "what does the wiki say".<br>
</span><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20151127103609.GA27775@amd" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yes, there's some confusion around this one.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd agree with that :)<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Andy (SomeoneElse)<br>
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://xkcd.com/927/">https://xkcd.com/927/</a> , obviously<br>
<br>
** FWIW I've tried to concentrate on other keys for rendering:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/35220">http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/35220</a> . No good
answer to "forestry areas" yet though.<br>
</body>
</html>