<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Only about the cited point (<i>tagging natural forests as
natural=wood</i>), I think a natural forest should be tagged as
natural=forest (<i>quite logically, I would say...</i>), while
natural=wood should be reserved for "small forests" (<i>which is
one of the possible meaning of "wood" in English, if I'm not
mistaken</i>).<br>
</p>
<p>Also please consider that "forest" is very generic, and we could
be willing to more exactly define which kind of forest we are
tagging (<i>and eventually have it rendered accordingly</i>).</p>
<p>To this extent the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the
leaf_type=* tag (<i>and only"broadleaved", "needleleaved" and
"mixed" are defined as possible values</i>).Wikipedia defines 6
types of forest:</p>
<p>But to me a forest is not just "a lot of trees", but an entire
ecosystem dominated by trees. And those ecosystems can be very
different between different continents and latitudes.</p>
<ul>
<li>Temperate needleleaf</li>
<li>Temperate broadleaf and mixed</li>
<li>Tropical moist</li>
<li>Tropical dry</li>
<li>Sparse trees and parkland</li>
<li>Forest plantations<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>I think we should be (somehow) able to tag those types.</p>
<p>Please also check the sixth forest type described in Wikipedia (<i>Forest
plantations</i>): I think it coincide with the "forestry"
concept we are talking about in the thread (<i>landuse=forestry,
or whatever...</i>).<br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Sergio</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-01-23 01:00, Peter Elderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v04nfW7FzY8mLYQJqyfLzy-+rANCBXh6JqQy=KLw98tg@mail.gmail.com">Natural
forests could be preferably tagged as natural=wood ...<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>