[Imports] Slovenia landcover import RABA-KGZ review

[Pavel Machek]

On Thu 2015-11-26 00:04:47, colored stone wrote:
> I can see this tag is stil in a proposal status. In a way the definition is
> quite clear "any area covered with trees, regardless of it being natural or
> not, in a forest or in a park/garden". This is what normal OSM mapper can
> see and map.
> 
> I don't like "trees" so much - its sounds a bit strange for large forests
> areas (those are forests), much better for smaller area covered by trees.
> But ok.
> 
> I don't see a big advantage to use both tags - landuse=forest and
> landcover=trees. Because they will be used more or less for same
> areas.

Unfortunately, other people are nitpicking. You see trees, so you know
it is landcover=trees.

But you _can't_ tag that landuse=forest, because you don't know if it
is actually used for wood production.

And you _can't_ tag for natural=wood, because if someone uses it for
wood production, that's incorrect.

So yes, we need landcover=trees, to shut the nitpickers up.

(And yes, it is also good idea. So do it.)
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html