[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Tomas Straupis]

2017-11-02 11:24 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis wrote:
> 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.

  This is exactly why I started the topology rules topic. What we're
doing in Lithuania is we have to separate types: general forest, and
forest inside residential, commercial, industrial zones. The later one
is usually just a small number of trees in an area which is marked as
say residential zone in official maps. The later one can easily be
skipped in a map and result would not have "holes".

  So even if we're using two tags in Lithuania, I'm fine with choosing
one tag for all forests/woods/trees/whatever and then if someone
needs/wants - they could add subtags for details.

  Introducing even new tags seems impossible (and impractical) because
absolute majority of mappers just want to tag "forest/wood". And they
don't care about the details, so they will not tag it. And I do not
know maps which would somehow use such data, especially when such
detailed data would only be filled by a few, so it will not be filled
in a large enough regions to do any reasonable analysis.

-- 
Tomas