[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Thu Jun 7 21:32:15 UTC 2018




7. Jun 2018 21:13 by tod at fitchdesign.com <mailto:tod at fitchdesign.com>:

> I happily started out tagging areas covered with trees as landuse=forest until there was a long thread here about how that was incorrect. There was a very vocal contingent that stressed that landuse=forest was for areas being managed to produce wood products and that one ought to use something like natural=wood if one simply wanted to show there were trees on it.
>
> And then I came across areas that were tree covered but definitely not natural and not something that should be tagged as an orchard, etc. This has led me to prefer landcover=trees and landcover=* in general to describe what I see on the land without worrying if it is natural or not.
>
> Now, for tree covered areas I use:
>
> natural=wood
> landcover=trees
>
> I feel that the natural=wood is tagging for the renderer but I do it anyway. And I feel that landcover=trees is a more accurate description of what is there and hope that someday it will be rendered on the standard map.
>




BTW, this different approaches are discussed at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180607/81754a12/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list