[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Warin]

On 02-Nov-17 08:58 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 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.

What is a 'real forest'? Compared to this 'residential area with large gardens and trees'?

Would not the area give away what you would find there?

How is a small area of trees different from a larger one?


>    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.
>

In that case used 'natural=wood' and be done, no sub tags.

That has no implication of 'managed' and according to parts of the 
OSMwiki includes 'unnatural' too.