<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
7. Jun 2018 19:42 by <a href="mailto:selfishseahorse@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">selfishseahorse@gmail.com</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">On 7 June 2018 at 19:26, Mateusz Konieczny <<a href="mailto:matkoniecz@tutanota.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">matkoniecz@tutanota.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote>7. Jun 2018 19:25 by <a href="mailto:selfishseahorse@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">selfishseahorse@gmail.com</a>:<br /><blockquote>Sorry, I didn't mean to deprecate landuse=forest. What I meant is:<br />what prevents us from fixing bad choices?</blockquote><br /><br />It depends. Can you be more precise what you specifically mean by this?</blockquote><br />For instance – to stick with our subject – what prevents OSM Carto<br />from rendering landcover=trees?<br /></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Unwillingness to promote highly-controversial tag that duplicates currently existing tags,</p><p>is generally not supported and is discussed rather than used.</p><p><br /></p><p>Note that AFAIK it is not supported both by nearly all data consumers and by editors</p><p>(when I checked there was no even third-party support via presets).</p><p> <br /></p><p>Please, do not use openstreetmap-carto as way to force your favourite controversial tag scheme.<br /></p> </body>
</html>