[Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Tobias Knerr]

On 20.08.2014 19:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
> 
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem
> to be so much confusion?

I believe some reasons why this topic comes up repeatedly are:

1. The definition wasn't always like this. It used to be that all
forests were natural=wood and land used for forestry would additionally
get tagged landuse=forest.

2. The current definition is problematic because it does not allow
simply mapping "forest" – you are forced to also map some distinction
that is not necessarily visible on the ground and that you may not be
interested in at all. (Unlike, say, an optional managed=yes/no would.)
So people might choose one of the two at random.

3. This distinction feels unusual for people in countries where
traditional maps use other factors to distinguish different wood
signatures, e.g. broadleaved/needleleaved. The little pine-like icons in
the landuse areas seem somewhat confusing in that regard, too.