<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/01/19 11:52, Sergio Manzi wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9cbd73ef-bdb2-a95c-019c-5b0b3aed5e46@smz.it">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
The area (size) is given by the area of the closed way. No need to
differentiate between 'small', 'medium' or 'large' (and each of them
would have to be defined). Avoid this!<br>
OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than
by using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags. <br>
I am firmly against having tags that distinguish between features
based on their size. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9cbd73ef-bdb2-a95c-019c-5b0b3aed5e46@smz.it">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
Trees and building are also 'generic' ... <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9cbd73ef-bdb2-a95c-019c-5b0b3aed5e46@smz.it">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Temperate and Tropical moist/dry are climates... if those are to be
mapped them go right ahead .. but they are not confined to forests,
so should be mapped separately.<br>
<br>
<br>
Whether something is 'natural' or not is up to your definition and
knowledge. For most mappers they simply see trees/plants. <br>
If you that 'natural' is something that is verifiable then tell us
how. <br>
How do you tell if a tree has been planted by humans and one that is
self seeded? I cannot see a difference at all. <br>
<br>
The density of plants (trees, shrubs, heath) is something to
consider .. but it needs to be a separate thing and be able to be
used with various vegetation types. I believe it has been raised
before. <br>
</body>
</html>