[HOT] Groups/areas of Trees=> leisure=park?

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 29 21:12:50 UTC 2016


Thanks, that is what I thought.  I am not adding trees, I just noticed
someone else had and they had tagged them in a manner that didn't match the
common practice as I understand it.


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Vao Matua <vaomatua at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> I would suggest that natural=wood should be the first tag, if the area is
> a park then the next tag could be leisure=park.  The OSM page on forest
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest>has good
> descriptions.
> In Ethiopia often the Orthodox churches are in the middle of a small
> church forests and would be tagged natural=wood, and land_use=religious.
> I love trees but would shy away from tagging individual trees except for
> landmark type specimen. There is a lot of mapping to do without mapping
> trees.
> Regards,
> Emmor
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> In #1544 (or in any HOT project) are we marking areas that are covered in
>> trees as leisure = park? Although it is not universally agreed upon, the
>> tendency in the rest of OSM is to tag these as natural=wood. See for
>> example [1]. Also, individual trees (represented as nodes) are tagged the
>> same way and normally those would be tagged natural=tree.
>> Mike
>> [1] http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1544#task/67
>> _______________________________________________
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20160229/fb091cde/attachment.html>

More information about the HOT mailing list