Talk:Tag:landcover=trees

Does this tag make sense?

landuse=forest can mean a lot. But natural=trees means there are trees growing. It's not defined what kind of trees or if it's probably a plant nursery. natural=trees is different to natural=scrub and different to natural=wood.

So what is distinct difference between natural=trees and landcover=trees? --EinKonstanzer (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense. Have a look at the proposal page which explains that in more detail. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not use landcover=trees, use natural=wood

The established way to tag "landcover" features like vegetation is with the key natural=*:

• dwarf shrubs, healthland - natural=heath
• Shrubs, bushes, scrubland - natural=scrub
• Trees - natural=wood
• water - natural=water
• ice - natural=glacier

etc. - natural=* These are supported by editors and database users, and are much more commonly used. Most of the uses of landcover=trees are in Paraguay from a particular organized mapping effort. There is no need use this tag or the key landcover. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

See proposal page which is already referenced above. It goes in depth on why landcover=* and why other more common tags are simply insufficient and also encourage inconsistent mapping. I've found landcover=trees in particular most useful in places where landuse for tree-covered area is something clearly distinct like cemetery or park. I see recently this page has been rewritten so that it's mostly about just contrasting tag usage counts, while aspects outlined in landcover propasal are ignored, which is sort of deceiving. Pikse 14:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)