[OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skippern at gimnechiske.org
Fri Jul 24 05:55:02 BST 2009
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:24:10 +1000, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote:
>> I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by
>> genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the
>> do there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but
>> a bad classification system. That's like saying "this apple is green,
>> grapefruit is citrus."
>> There are deciduous conifers, and evergreen broadleafs. Coniferous
>> even account for all of the needleleaf trees.. The wiki should probably
>> suggesting deciduous, evergreen and mixed. . .
>> Adopting the UNEP-WCMC broad categories  would make much more sense
>> the current bad wiki suggestions. and adopting the more specific
>> would cover a vast majority of forests.
The division between coniferous and decidous in Norwegian (european?) maps
was originally interesting from an economical point of view, as the value
and usage of pine/sprouce lumber and oak/maple is very different.
But as OSM might have even more different usages than old trade maps from
northern europe, maybe we should tag in a whole different way? As I now
live in Brazil, where I have less then halve a clue what the different
types are called, the best for me would be to identify the types of wood by
what I can see (broadleaf/needleleaf + evergreen=yes/no +
More information about the talk