[OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 15.08.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>:
> 
> As I've said have a unified render just covers up that we're tagging incorrectly. There should only be one primary tag to describe large area of trees.
> 
> Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm not that concerned about but it really should only be one option.


why should there be just one tag for all kinds of forests and other areas where trees grow? Having a lot of forest with a proper name is very common in some areas and having them grouped into bigger areas of forest, with another name is common as well. And those might be grouped into even bigger areas of forest, with yet another name.

My idea is to use the natural key for these "pieces of forest" with a name (they might also comprise areas which aren't actually tree covered, like a meadow or a lake).

If you just put overlapping/nested areas with the name and not the info that it's for/from a forest, you loose something.

Then there are areas dedicated to growing trees, but sometimes there aren't actual trees there for the moment (e.g. trees have just been logged, or there was a fire, etc.). This is what I would use landuse=forest for.

And then there are areas where actually trees grow, sometimes in a forest and sometimes elsewhere. That's where landcover trees seems appropriate for me.


For rendering purposes, I would use a fill mainly for the landcover, while the names (and no fill) would come from natural. Landuse would be mainly for specialist maps, but of course this is up to the rendering style devs to ultimately decide.


cheers 
Martin