[OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...

[Jason Cunningham]

You cant confidently split trees into two groups, although Ordnance Survey
have tried to.
I believe in the future there will be a desire to give areas of woodland a
tag that describes the type of woodland. But there is not rush and
Evergreen, Deciduous and Mixed seem like a safe start

Jason Cunningham


2009/8/8 Mike Harris <mikh43 at googlemail.com>

> Sympathy from a pom! Deciduous and evergreen are orthogonal. Coniferous is
> not even quite a sub-set of evergreen as there are a few deciduous
> conifers,
> e.g. larch. So OSM to use evergreen vs. deciduous and show its innate
> superiority to OS?
>
>
> Mike Harris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liz [mailto:edodd at billiau.net]
> Sent: 22 July 2009 21:38
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural
> worldmapping ...
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote:
> > There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
> > trees.  Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know.  Ordnance
> > survey maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and
> > has symbols for coppice and orchard.
>
> Another Venn diagram problem.
> Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the alternate is "mixed"
>
> Liz
> living in country covered in mallee, casuarina and occasional eucalypt
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090808/fda5ab60/attachment.html>