[Imports] Slovenia landcover import RABA-KGZ review

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/11/2015 15:22, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2015-11-24 15:43 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com>:
>>
>>> So if you have landcover data that says there are trees, that's
>>> natural=wood
>>
>> I'd tag landcover=trees. There are different ideas about what constitutes
>> the meaning / requirement for the key "natural",
> I'd be quite happy with that - and the larger idea that each space has
> at most one landcover and at most one landuse.
>
>

As an aside, it should perhaps be stressed that almost no-one (apart 
from the person who suggested it above ) uses the tag 
"landcover=trees".  Here's for example is a randomly-selected 
significantly-covered-by-trees area:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cUp

The contradictions in tree tagging are referred to here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest

I'm sure that it's fair to say that "natural=wood" is used _more_ to 
describe "here be trees" than "landcover=trees". Although the former, on 
its own, is used by other mappers to mean other things, the fact that 
there's ambiguity means that the only conclusion that can be drawn from 
"natural=wood" is "here be trees".

What we're missing, of course, is something to describe areas used for 
forestry where there may or may not currently be trees...

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)