Proposal talk:Deciduous

In my opinion it would be far better to use a tag such as type=deciduous, since a more general tag could then be applied to both the natural=wood tag and the landuse=forest tag. Dmgroom 14:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the author of this proposal even know what deciduous means? It's not by any means the opposite or even comparable with coniferous. Coniferous trees can be deciduous. A good example of that is the larch. I think "Broadleaf forest" is the term you are looking for. I can buy "deciduous broadleaf" to be more specific. And while you are at it, why not think about implementing other biomes as well. Just because there's not a jungle just outside your door doesn't mean that no one want to tag one. And what about mixed forests for an example of something a bit closer to your door. I'm sorry. I realize I'm in a bit of a bad mood. I'm just tired of the proposal process for tags in this project. Someone takes something from his/her own backyard and makes an suggestions concerning just that isolated thing. Without concerns about what would happen if one extend upon that or the semantics of it all. See natural=marsh for a really good example, natural=wetland should have been thought of at the beginning. --Bengibollen 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If we look at UNEP-WCMC forest classification [1] we'll see, that there should be two keys, for shedding with "deciduous" and "evergreen" values (at least), and for leaf type with "broadleaf" and "needleleaf", for example. This scheme will not be controversial and confusing.--BushmanK (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)