[Talk-GB] Landuse or natural wood?

SomeoneElse 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 mailing list