<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12-Oct-17 07:54 PM, David Marchal
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DB5PR03MB1014CA59C4E7120F7235018BA24B0@DB5PR03MB1014.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
Hello, there.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a part of a forest has been razed and is now a scrub
area, should I let this natural=scrub area in the forest
multipolygon? I thought so, as the scrub area is still managed
as a section of the whole forest, but another user updated it
to exclude the scrub areas from the forest multipolygon, so I
would like to know which version was correct.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Awaiting your answers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Is the area<br>
A) used for forestRY - an area that uses trees to produce
something? <br>
B) or just an area with trees? <br>
<br>
If A then it is correct to have the area tagged landuse=forest.
The addition of landcover=scrub, once the 'scrub ' grows into
trees then landcover=trees can be done. <br>
If B then it should be tagged landcover=scrub as the tress are no
longer there. <br>
<br>
For me the landuse=forest (where correct) is enough, I would not
tag the cycle of the harvesting, planting, growth of the trees.
But some want that detail. <br>
There are enough blank areas on the map that these time dependant
details lack any real interest to me. <br>
<br>
----------------<br>
Note: renders may not recognise landcover ... so you may have to
add 'natural=scrub' etc even if it is not what you would call
natural. </font><br>
</body>
</html>