[Tagging] There are no 'non managed' woods. Was: landcover=trees definition
john at jfeldredge.com
Tue Aug 18 20:41:18 UTC 2015
Also, if a managed woodland ceases to be actively managed, so that it
gradually reverts back to a wild state, does it eventually get
reclassified? There are many places around the world where a former managed
woodland, or cleared farm, has reverted back to forest.
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On August 15, 2015 6:18:49 AM "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging