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

[James Livingston]

On 09/08/2009, at 8:17 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> Wood and Forest have not had clear definitions for centuries in the  
> UK, and as Mike Harris states the trees within Forests were  
> incidental (the famous Sherwood Forest was mostly heathland).

Just because it's called a "Forest" doesn't mean that it should be  
tagged as landuse=forest. I know several a few Lakes without water,  
and Beaches that no longer have a beach.


> Looking at the discussion Mike Harris has already suggested the tags  
> I would suggest, but I may as well repeat them
> natural=woodland  land covered with trees (Minimum Crown Cover = 20%)
> landuse=forestry

Does landuse=forestry mean that it is a managed forest (like  
landuse=forest was supposed to), or that it is an area used by the  
timber industry? For the latter you could make the distinction between  
natural=wood;landuse=forestry (old-growth) and  
landuse=farm;produce=tree (plantation).