[Tagging] Forest vs Wood
Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 09:26:53 UTC 2014
2014-09-24 1:21 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com>:
> I think the right thing to do is to look to professional geography.
> There, there are two separate concepts
>
> land use: what humans do with the land
>
> land cover: what is actually there
>
+1, but I think there are even more concepts to consider. Think about
geographical regions / named areas. An area with a forest name will often
(especially if it is bigger) have also other landcover and landuse inside
it. It is not strictly a forest in the sense that every square meter is
shaded by trees. And very often inside a forest area with a name you will
have other forest areas with other names (for these smaller parts), i.e.
nesting. This nested objects should have their name rendered, but not
necessarily they have to be filled or outlined.
>
>
> So landuse=forest is appropriate for land which is being managed for
> production, even if it is little pulp trees.
>
+1, maybe even if the area has just been logged and is bare for the moment.
>
> And natural=wood (or we should move to landcover=wood, really) for areas
> that are dominated by trees.
>
I'd stick with the "natural describes a geographic object" definition and
use natural=forest (and maybe also natural=woodland for less dense areas)
for things I described above (a forest as a geographical entity). For areas
which are covered by trees (and which often aren't forests but only small
patches of trees) I am using and advocating "landcover=trees".
cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140924/ad9fd2f9/attachment.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list