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

[Tyler]

Martin,
I agree with you. I like the idea of using natural=whatever for landcover
and landuse=whatever for the landuse. While I'm not convinced national
parks, national forest wilderness areas, federal/state/county/municipal
wildlife reserves shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no
argument that boundary="reserve type" is inadequate. I do think that there
should be a better way to tag nature reserves and allowed activities, to
that end I'm currently looking into regulations in non-US countries with
similarly regulated large areas (generic applicable tags seem appropriate).

I will, however, stand by my bigfoot_habitat=yes tag.

-Tyler

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 2009/7/21 maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com>:
> > Landuse and Landcover are two  different things although in some cases
> > interchangeable.
>
> it doesn't change my point: there can be different reserves /
> protective areas at the same area (air, water, natural, ...), together
> with different "OSM-defined" landuses like forest, basin, reservoir,
> etc.
> Using landuse=nature_reserve will unnecessarily complicate our lifes...
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090720/4341ddf7/attachment.html>