Ok, you’re right. I was a bit confused about the inconsistent usage of landuse and natural tag. Sometimes it’s not clear why there is used the natural or landuse key. For forrest you have both (landuse=forrest and natural=wood) but it seems to be the only one where you can decide whether it is managed or not.
So I thought a new key would fix it in my case. But it seems to be a general problem, so it should discussed about in general and not in my specific topic. That means I agree with you. Option 1 or 2 would be the best choice. In my opinion the options only should be recommendations, the user should be free to decide the best option by himself. So what is the next step for me? How can I announce this value? Is a proposal-page in the wiki needed? Greetings Simon/descilla 2014-06-29 21:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > > Il giorno 29/giu/2014, alle ore 20:09, Simon Wüllhorst < > m...@simon-wuellhorst.de> ha scritto: > > > > What do you think about theses options? > > > I prefer options 1 and 2 as I don't think that "trees" or "scrub" are > (sub)types of this feature, they are rather orthogonal ways of > seeing/describing the same spot of land. > > cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
