[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13 Feb 2021, at 17:35, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, natural=wood and landcover=trees already have the same meaning regardless of whether this proposal is accepted. 


there is a distinction to make (I am not going so far to say it is currently applied like this in the tags and their definitions) between an area covered by trees (but not sufficiently big to become a forest, or with paving between the trees, etc) and a forest/wood with animals living there, soil composition etc. of a forest. When there are 5 trees (or slightly more) in a garden, park or on a square, it is still covered by landcover=trees but nobody would say it’s a forest and at the time landcover was proposed as a key this situation wasn’t covered by landuse=forest or natural =wood.
In the meantime the definition of landuse=forest in the wiki has become the same as that of landcover=trees, effectively making one -two of them superfluous.

Cheers Martin