[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Dave F]

(Split to a separate thread)

The woods/forest problem is one of the worst tagging cock-ups in OSM. 
It's bad enough when alternate values are used to differentiate what is 
actually the same object, but in this case it's also the key!

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't 
been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western 
world. Even in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest or Borneo the 
locals use wood for tools/fire/building etc.

Ignoring the landcover argument for a moment, all areas of trees should 
be primarily tagged as natural=wood. As with other entities, any further 
details which gives clarity should be provided in sub-tags.

Approach 2 is the appropriate example: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest,

The four render options on the website render wood & forest primary tags 
the same

DaveF

----------
On 26/10/2017 13:37, Janko Mihelić wrote:,> A problem i find is with 
landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are used for growing 
trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for any land that is 
covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't overlap with 
other zones, but practically, until a new tag (landcover=trees) is 
rendered, this rule isn't going to be followed.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus