[Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Dave F.]

Hi

I think there are a few reasons, but let's start with the basics:

For two things so similar it's confusing to have two separate key 
values: natural & landuse. IMO both should use natural (which trees are 
of course).

Any description of their management/harvesting should be put into sub 
tags. However I will go as far as to say there a very few areas of trees 
in the world that have been manipulated by humans in some form or manner.

If there is any differences between wood & forest I would say it's in 
their size and/or density, but I've no idea where you'd put the dividing 
line.

David F.



On 20/08/2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
>
> * for ensuring good data; and
> * to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
>
> Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right of the wiki 
> page (and thus those that get picked up by taginfo and other software) 
> are:
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
> [1] 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/647#issuecomment-52756701
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140821/4c8ae6f9/attachment.html>