<div dir="ltr">For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified.<div><br></div><div>I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass, trees, scrub, and sand.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-06-12 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<div class="m_6270110180700754220moz-cite-prefix">On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin
Koppenhoefer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
> On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen <<a href="mailto:pla16021@gmail.com" target="_blank">pla16021@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are
not<br>
> consistently used by a single organization for
anything (and often called "Xyz Forest"<br>
<br>
<br>
interesting, can you give a real world example where a
group of trees has actually the name “... forest”? I
always thought a forest would require more trees.<br>
<div class="m_6270110180700754220HOEnZb">
<div class="m_6270110180700754220h5"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what
the other wrote or you're quibbling about the size of a
group.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees. It is a nature
reserve and so it is not used for forestry (aka logging).
There may<br>
</div>
<div>be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not
systematically logged on a wide scale.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is why landuse=forest is problematical. Sherwood
Forest is not land used for forestry, but it is called
Sherwood<br>
Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to
use (because it says "forest").<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of
landcover=trees or landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a
good<br>
</div>
<div>idea. I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees
should be used in combination with landuse=forestry
because what<br>
</div>
<div>is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees
but saplings or stumps.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I am coming around to this way of tagging.<br>
Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me... <br>
Some are forestry (yea!) <br>
Some are parks .. <br>
Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map
colours ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is
legally allowed in OSM) <br>
Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that
is forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be
back. <br>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Vr gr Peter Elderson</div>
</div>