[New Check] natural=water contains natural=wood

[andrewharvey]

Description
I can't think of why natural=wood should intersect natural=water areas. Trees in the water are usually wetland=mangrove.

Requirements

1. Check Candidate (example)

• Identify where natural=wood contains natural=water. Where two areas touch with shared nodes or shared relation member, then that's fine and common to mark where the wood meets the water.

Use Cases
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-35.4167/150.4132

Further investigation
Many smaller water bodies within large wood areas, mappers probably don't bother to cut these out as multipolygon inners. They might argue this mapping is okay, but still natural=wood should only be where there are trees and they aren't usually in a lake.

Supported regions
All countries

What's not supported (optional):

References

[Bentleysb]

This sounds like a great idea for a check. I would propose ignoring anything tagged as a wetland, unless there is good evidence not to.

[andrewharvey]

This sounds like a great idea for a check. I would propose ignoring anything tagged as a wetland, unless there is good evidence not to.

Since you can't have both natural=wetland and natural=wood on the same object then it's either one or the other, and agreed wetlands are often mapped over the water area.

If you have natural=wood + wetland=* then I'd say that's a tagging error as if there is a wetland it should be natural=wetland otherwise if not a wetland then just natural=wood.