Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 12:57 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>:
> I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a >> meadow orchard. >> > > I see a range of tree densities in the Wikipedia article. > > it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term >> "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods. >> Can you see the difference? >> > > And the term "pasture" is about pastures. Can you see the similarities? > pasture is not synonymous to meadow, it is a part of it. > > Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or >>> cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture. >>> >> > So you object to silvopasture on the grounds that it implies pasture but > want orchard_meadow > (which implies meadow) yet just admitted that the meadow in an orchard > meadow can be > used either as a meadow OR as a pasture. If you were being consistent you > would insist on > silvomeadowpasture or propose orchard_pasture too. I suspect that what is > really behind your > insistence is you want a literal, word-for-word translation of a German > term rather than the > English term for the same thing. > the fact that there are different terms for these in German (Streuobstwiese vs. Hutewald / Waldweide / Hutung) indicates (besides the other criterion) that they are different concepts. My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about > (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below, > I agree, and this is why it is not the same as a meadow orchard, because a meadow orchard is not about a kind of forest. I don't see that connotation. From the Wikipedia article: "Silvopasture > can be established by > planting trees into existing pasture > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasture> [...]" and "Integrating pasture > into existing woodland presents > challenges as well: the woodland likely needs to be thinned to increase > light infiltration," > You are basing your arguments entirely on wikipedia, but it would not be the first time that there are errors in a wikipedia article. Not only does the Wikipedia article state that you can put trees into > pasture but it shows pictures > of fields with sparse trees. > I admit there are pictures in the article that show trees in a setting that is quite sparse and may not qualify for the term "forest", but still these aren't trees that are usually found in an orchard. Silvopasture requires pasture, meadow orchards don't. >> > A wise man once told me "Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for > either pasture > or cutting the grass." So meadow_orchard is as wrong as silvopasture. > no, this is not logical. Please read again what you just wrote. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
