While individual trees are marked on the map, natural woods are not

jamescridland

Kagi maps highlights individual trees very well, with a splodge of random leaves correctly marking where the trees shade the path, in the below screenshot.

However, surrounding the creek, to the north of the path, is natural woodland, which isn't rendered by Kagi Maps. This suggests that there's just a small stream running through the grass, which isn't correct.

On OpenStreetMaps, this area shows that the natural wood extends both sides of the creek, and is a clearer representation on what is on the ground.

A natural wood should look different to grassland. Ideally, a natural wood should look like the cluster of trees as seen on this map - but with lots of trees (since a natural wood normally has a good amount of ground cover).

RoxyRoxyRoxy

Hmm, I'd be concerned with performance on lower end devices if we made that all rendered trees. Agree the forest should be reflected somehow though.

jamescridland

RoxyRoxyRoxy - of course, the prettiness of Mapbox's rendering here is nice, but more important, I'd think, to clearly reflect what's on the ground, or these maps aren't very helpful for many tasks (including walking). Even if there's a different colour for a wooded area vs grass, that would make sense.

If it helps, here are two images from the area - the wooded area to the north, and the park below. I'm sure you'd agree that they shouldn't look identical on a map, particularly when the underlying data is there to help distinguish them.