[Tagging] Forest vs Wood

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Wed Aug 20 19:50:10 UTC 2014


2014-08-20 19:45 GMT+02:00 Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>:

> 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?
>

This difference is impossible to maintain during mapping as typically
forests are mapped from aerial images. And checking
whatever it is woodland without forestry requires extensive survey (what
worse, just visiting forest is not enough).

Anyway, I am unsure whatever there any example of properly mapped
natural=wood in Europe (assuming that this rules are considered
valid). I am pretty sure that every single forest is in some way maintained
by humans (at the very least - blocking access etc in NRs).

Also, reading infobox is not enough. Starting paragraph on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest

"Some use this tag for land primarily managed for timber production, others
uses if for woodland that is in some way
maintained by humans."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140820/6efa9eab/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list