[Talk-GB] Landuse or natural wood?
lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk
Tue Jan 12 21:52:47 GMT 2010
Craig Wallace wrote:
> Anyway, originally there was 2 tags:
> natural=wood - for (mostly) unmanaged areas of trees/woods/forest
> landuse=forest - for managed areas of trees/woods/forest
> The landuse=wood tag is more recent, and seems to be somewhere in
> between. ie for somewhat managed trees.
If I remember correctly,, one of the previous discussions on this was
provoked by a bot changing "landuse=wood" instances to "landuse=forest"
- that may explain why there are relatively few "landuse=wood" examples
around (683 vs 261k according to osmdoc).
As for "natural=wood", I've never seen anywhere in the UK that is truly
"natural" woodland, although some areas have a bigger claim than
others. In reality like a lot of things it isn't really black and
white. As long as people are mapping the boundary of woodland, it's all
good - the tags can be tidied later.
> But this tag is not as well supported by the editors or renderers, and
> has hardly any usage compared to the other two.
Mapnik and Osmarender both render landuse=forest and landuse=wood as
(differently) green. For me Potlatch renders both as grey. The
cyclemap does omit landuse=wood, but that's entirely its perogative.
More information about the Talk-GB