natural=wood or landuse=forest ???

Someone just revised Forest , and i always thought that in the whole world only a ‘few’ Old-growth forests were ‘conform’ to tag as natural=wood … hmmm … confusing … :roll_eyes:
Why not make it simple and tag all landcover=trees and then maybe add natural=wood in such ‘few’ cases and in case of places for the growing/cutting/selling trees, add landuse=forest ? :wink:

It is confusing and no-one really nows nowadays what landuse=forest or natural=wood means.
see for an explaination of all the different views on those tags.

We have discussed this on the Belgian riot channel awhile back and had some plans to start using landcover=trees. But in the end nothing changed.

I prefer landcover=trees for all cases, in combination with e.g. leisire=park or leisure=garden or natural=wood (e.g. for Zonienwoud)
landuse=forest or forestry should be reserved for places for the growing/cutting/selling trees. But that’s my view, as said above there are many views.

Seems that in Holland there is no old-growth forest(oerbos) anymore, and in Belgium Zoniënwoud and a few other are remains of an oerbos(old-growth forest)

I too prefer landcover=trees. I have no way of knowing if the trees are “natural” or were the result of some intervention of people in years gone by. And I can’t tell, especially by aerial imagery, if the trees are part of a wood products production (forestry) area.

But I double tag with natural=wood just so it shows up on some map. (I know, “tagging for the renderer” and all that.) My hope is that enough people start using landcover=* maybe the usual map rendering will follow.

“Someone just revised Forest” note that this is Wiki - anyone may make an edit and some should be reverted (I had no time to check whatever this one should be reverted).

Wikis are not holy, undisputable sources of information.