[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
pla16021 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 09:37:21 UTC 2018
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
> called "Xyz Forest"
> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
> more trees.
> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
you're quibbling about the size of a group.
Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees. It is a nature reserve and so it is
not used for forestry (aka logging). There may
be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically logged
on a wide scale.
This is why landuse=forest is problematical. Sherwood Forest is not land
used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
idea. I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in
combination with landuse=forestry because what
is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging