[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Marc Gemis]

The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too
often I find myself in a residential area with large gardens and trees
when I expected to find a real forest based on what OSM is displaying.

So there is room for improvement.

I like the landcover=trees idea, but this does not describe the
complete picture. I also want t be able to indicate what is between
the trees: ground, grass, grassy plants, bushes.
And when is something landcover=trees + bushes and when
landcover=bushes + some trees ?

m.

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many
>> times, <...>
>
>   And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right ->
> everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this topic is not
> settled for so many years -> I suggest doing a compromise and agreeing
> on ONE tag.
>   (Compromise is currently done on rendering/data extraction side.
> Nobody cares there about natural/landuse/landcover whatever. It's one
> forest and that is it)
>
>   The only other way is to use de facto situation - natural=wood and
> landuse=forest - and forget this discussion.
>
> P.S. And all I wanted was to talk about topology rules... BTW: here is
> an example of topology rules in Lithuania:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Lithuania/Topology_rules
>
> --
> Tomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk