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

Marc Gemis marc.gemis at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 08:31:18 UTC 2018

> Private vs. public does not matter.
> Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
> A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.
> According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
> of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
> "groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
> For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
> ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
> about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
> waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
> also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
> paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
> parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
> countries can have different definitions.
> Note that you look for a specific kind of forests.
> For example there are forests that are
> - logging oriented (with no paths and tracks usable only by heavy machinery)
> - nature reserves, with no entry allowed
> - private forests, with entry controlled by owner
> - and many more cases.

I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
And again you have not answered my questions on how to map named
forests with lakes and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
landuse, those are more important than defining my vague definition of

More information about the Tagging mailing list