[NUUG kart] Skog

[Edward Welbourne]

>>> landuse=forest  (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:landuse%3Dforest)
>>>
>>> natural=wood  (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:natural%3Dwood)

>> "natural" på omtrent alt, og "landuse" bare på opplagte ting
>> som eplehager og juletrefarm?

> Ja, det synes jeg høres fornuftig ut.  Det er noe slikt jeg også tenker 
> når jeg leser beskrivelsen av taggene.

I note that the landuse=forest page links to
http://etricceline.de/osm/united-kingdom/en_combination_landuse%3Dforest.htm
which mentions natural=wood, natural=forest, natural=woodland, natural=land
although no matching page exists for any but the first :-(
The natural=wood page's equivalent UK page lists landuse=woodland,
landuse=common and landuse=park, again without any supporting pages.

Idiomatically, "wood" describes a tame (and usually small) area covered
with trees - Winnie the Pooh (Ole Brum) meets nothing more dangerous
than Tigger in hundred acre (0.4 km^2) wood - whereas forest is wild
(and generally large), although large expanses of trees grown for timber
come under the jurisdiction of the ministry for (agriculture, fisheries
and) "forestry".  A stand of trees kept for their fruit is really an
orchard, but I would describe it as a wood if I had to chose between
wood and forest.  I regard "natura=wood" as an oxymoron - a wood
typically isn't natural; people have at least managed it, tended it and
tamed it, even if they didn't actually plant it - whereas
"natural=forest" would be logical.  Conversely, landuse=orchard and
landuse=wood make sense, while landuse=forest really says "we're not
actually using this land, we're just leaving it alone to be natural".
So the documented alternatives are rather counter-idiomatic !

How this connects to openstreetmap's nomenclature is harder to say.
Given the lack of entries in the Wiki for the various alternatives that
would make more sense, I suspect your consensus above is about as
sensible as you can come up with,

	Eddy.