2010/10/8 Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com>: >> still it isn't at all a forest. > > It is a forest - a clearing within a forest.
There is no point in tagging it as a forest. I know that you can generalize it like this. It's the same point as with a lake inside a forest. Is the lake part of the forest, or not? This depends on the point of view, and can be answered either way. But it is not helpful for the data consumer to not give them the chance to decide (because they don't have the info). If you would want to draw a generalized map with landuses that will be quite easy if you have all the particular and detailed actual landuses (you would just do a processing of the data prior to rendering), but the other way round it is impossible. If you make clear where there is a clearing and where there are trees, the people using the data can decide based on parametres like type of landuse and size of it, whether they want to display or generalize it. IMHO in OSM landuse=forest is always a tree-covered area. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
