<html><head></head><body><div dir="auto">Sounds sensible to me but I'm no expert. We have lots of moor here in Yorkshire <br></div>
<div dir="auto">Colin<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto"><!-- tmjah_g_1299s -->Sent from <!-- tmjah_g_1299e --><a href="http://www.typeapp.com/r?b=10741"><!-- tmjah_g_1299s -->TypeApp<!-- tmjah_g_1299e --></a><!-- tmjah_g_1299s --> <!-- tmjah_g_1299e --></div>
<div class="gmail_quote" >On 25 Sep 2017, at 12:31, ael <<a href="mailto:law_ence.dev@ntlworld.com" target="_blank">law_ence.dev@ntlworld.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="blue">On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:10:07AM +0000, SK53 wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> than anything they reflect that OSM as a project lacks good tags for many<br> of these boreo-temperate upland features, and whilst that is true there<br></blockquote><br>I have been changing some "heath" areas of Dartmoor to "moor". But I<br>notice that the wiki claims that this is deprecated.<br><br>Since most of these are large areas which really cover a variety of <br>vegetation, I can't see that any of the "established" tags are really<br>appropriate. "Moor" is exactly right. <br><br>If forced to use the documentated tags, I would go for<br>natural = grassland;wetland as the best approximation despite the <br>fact that not everything is wet nor is grass.<br><br>Of course, it only makes sense for coarse-grained approximate mapping,<br>and more localised accurate tags are the ideal.<br><br>Should "moor" or something similar be restored and supported by<br>renderers?<br><br>ael<br><br><hr><br>Talk-GB mailing list<br>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>