[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests
Tobias Knerr
osm at tobias-knerr.de
Tue Oct 31 08:54:07 UTC 2017
On 31.10.2017 07:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:> one tag for what? An
area with trees? A forest? How would you define> "forest"?
One tag that can be used for mapping both the things currently mapped as
landuse=forest, and the things currently mapped as natural=wood.
Whether that is a tag for "forest" or for "tree-covered area" is a
worthwhile discussion. But going beyond that and asking for a precise
definition of "forest" seems like an almost impossible requirement, and
I'd rather have a less than perfect definition than no change.
> this is really a non-issue, just evaluate these 2 tags the same way and you’re done.
That's an easy way out for data consumers, but not for mappers. When
mapping forests, you are currently forced to make a distinction that you
may not care about and that you may not even be qualified to make: You
can't just map a forest without also including a statement regarding its
naturalness or use for forestry purposes.
More information about the talk
mailing list