Lieckio (2026-06-13 08:07:37+00:00): Having now slept the night, I am fair bit less upset than I was last night all sleep deprived :)

However, my issue is with removing information/data, without providing a fix. While natural=wood is incorrect in the literal wiki definition sense, the result is still the "there is trees here!".

Arguably, I could use a better tagging for it, or even add Key:fixme for it as well.

Point being, instead of requiring a 100% accurate, perfect fully populated information of every single tree at the get go, those areas show tree cover roughly around the area nobody has surveyd and added as of now. But it's much more useful than just plain grass cover.

Now, OSM is far from perfect in the tagging department, so what is the option? landcover=trees doesn't really seem to be a supported option, but I could use that in the future for marking tree areas that have not been surveyed down to a tree and would require future resurvey / more detailed survey. But logging individual trees live is fairly time consuming process even when using satellite imagery as well :)

You brought a good point about the natural=wood in Tiergarden. Probably should have spent more time looking at the examples. Berlin is very detailed and well mapped, and I looked around a lot of the parks and saw them marked as natural=wood. I took a quick look at some of them via Google Earth (not optimal) streetview to see what's actually going on, but it never dawned on me that there is indeed a logic in the groundcover part of the tags in use in Germany as well. There's also a fair bit of landuse=forest in some of the parks, but I haven't checked their age.

Now this might be because I am more used to a different definition of forest floors in parks elsewhere in the world (where I lived, parks with trees often have all sorts of "foresty" growth under them). I suspect this is why the difference between Finnish grass and trees vs German trees with forest floor didn't register in my inspection.

In short, I think we are in agreement that the natural=wood is indeed wrong tagging scheme to use here. Solution is to use landcover=trees and perhaps fixme or some other style to denote that further work is needed, yet still retaining information that there are trees in the area, rather than open air grass. I am open to further ideas.

As to tagging genus, in hindsight I wish I had actually marked what the trees are in the area, instead of just locations roughly. As you can probably see, I've made quite a lot of various changes in a broad area - my survey is not exactly fully comprehensive unfortunately! I've marked a variety of features and their locations by hand on a map in relation to major features so that I can refer to them when tracing the aerial data. It didn't occur to me to actually note if they are leafy etc., though for some trees this would be possible to see from aerial imagery.

However, this being an opensource project, I trust that other participants ccan and will add further information and detail in the future. I consider my work mainly an updated groundwork for future adjustments, additions and fixes :)

Also I don't think there's a need to revert the deletion; it's well reasoned and has a point, even if I disagree with how it was done.

Ket's keep the discussion going on in the future! There's certainly a lot of issues that need to be discussed and due to the state of the wiki and ever changing nature of the tagging, vigilance in the correct current tagging is apreciated on my part :)