[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Dave F]

On 30/10/2017 17:25, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
> "Although /forest/ is a term of common parlance, there is no 
> universally recognised precise definition, with more than 800 
> definitions of forest used around the world."

This is part of the OSM problem - It's been misappropriated as a verb to 
indicate that work is performed on a group of trees & also merged to 
include a few of those 800 variations (size, density etc). Using 
sub-tags some of those numerous definitions can, where appropriate, be 
added.

Separating them into individual sub-tags makes it *much* easier & 
accurate to filter if required rendering or data analysis.

>
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Definition ]
>
> I think it's hopeless for us to coin good definition.
>
>> FWIW, there's already a compatible tag to say: "area with trees", and 
>> that is landcover=trees.
>
> +1 - this one is clear for me.

I'd think natural=wood is adequate (all the main renderers are 
displaying it), but if there's a belief another tag is better, then I'd 
be happy to go with that as the /real/ problem is OSM is currently using 
two different tags (both key & value!) to represent the same entity,

Are any renderers currently rendering 'landcover'?

DaveF



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171030/a1955be0/attachment-0001.html>