[Tagging] Forest vs Wood

[Tom Pfeifer]

These are all rendering questions that should be discussed separately
from tagging, as there can be many different map styles being created
for different purposes.

johnw wrote on 2014-09-25
> Or make Highway=trunk a little brighter green, so it stands out against the wood even more.
> johnw <johnw at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees on the ground",  then the current implementation of forest - the bright green with tree markers - should probably use the same color of "wood" green, as they are all just a large amount of trees.  The forest still uses the the tree icon overlay, to show usage, just like Nature Reserve has the NR overlay, or Zoo with the Z overlay.
>>
>> If we're gonna seperate conditions on the ground from usage, then it seems that having a single color that means "trees" is a good idea.
>>
>> That would also free up a more visible green for another use on the map, maybe something distinctly manmade, like crop=rice, crop=corn, crop=vegetable, etc. (and leave the brown for wheat). Just an idea.
>>
>>
>> There are large sections of cleared and replanted cedars here in Japan, and it is actively logged - so it has a different land use - but it is al just hills covered with trees. The only time most people notice or care about the difference is in winter, when the cedars stay dark green and the native mixed maple forest loses it's leaves - the mountains become grey and black striped.
>>
>> Javbw
>>