[OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel]

On 15 August 2015 14:23:09 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to the
>natural (as in nature) and managed "idea". Usually the distinction
>between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
>natural and landuse is about named entities vs. the usage by man
>attribute. A group of trees in the park is sometimes a wood but never a
>forest. Landcover has a point besides trees (think grass for instance)

This is a perfect example of the confusion around landuse=forest vs natural=wood. Size and density ? Managed ? Named ? Usage type ? The curent osm data is a mix of all these criterias an more; at this stage it is hopeless for the consumer to extract more meaning than 'here be trees'. Landcover=trees is rightly calling these nuances a loss and trying a fresh clean approach.
-- 
Vincent Dp