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

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 23:41:01 UTC 2018

That's not what I meant. Significant areas of managed forest is what I
meant, just as it's described in the wiki.
I meant keep the meaning, keep the uses for now, but facilitate a better
alternative at the same time, for those cases where the type of forest/wood
is not (yet) known and for patches of tree-covered land within other
Over time, you will see the usage change. Seeing trees will be
landcover=trees; for managed forest: landuse=forest; for unmanaged woods:

natural=wood and landuse=forest imply landcover=trees except where
otherwise specified, so that's totally backwards compatible with all the
existing millions of uses. No worries there.

2018-06-08 0:11 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>:

> On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is
>> actually how the land is used.
>> So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently.
> So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5 million
> uses?
> I'm sure that you have only the best of intentions, but, er, good luck
> with that :)
> Best Regards,
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180608/3062e208/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list