[Tagging] There are no 'non managed' woods. Was: landcover=trees definition

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Sat Aug 15 11:18:47 UTC 2015

On 02/08/2015 23:55, Daniel Koć wrote:
> I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, 
> it's quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because 
> it's just about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define 
> as a generic tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper 
> if it's natural or not ("forest" vs "wood").
> Do you agree with this idea?

A system that makes the current confusing set up of natural=wood, 
landuse=forest redundant then all for it. Apart from the fact very few 
trees areas aren't managed in some form or another, any such distinction 
should be sub tagged, & not by using separate, confusing key tags.

Dave F.

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Tagging mailing list