[OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[ajt1047 at gmail.com]

On 15/08/2015 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> ... 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.
>
>

Maybe a diary entry explaining your point of view on this in detail 
would help here - specifically real-world examples of something that is 
"landcover=trees" but not "natural=wood", and what meaning you think 
"natural=wood" and "landuse=forest" have?  Pictures you've taken of the 
areas would be really helpful too.

FWIW when I looked at tree rendering (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/35220 ) I did look 
at the usage of landcover, with a view to incorporating it in the script 
the handles tree types there simply wasn't enough usage of it locally to 
even consider it (see 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/landcover=trees ).

Cheers,

Andy