Simply, sometimes there is insufficient detail to determine whether a tree has wood.

Example: post #265856

Further consideration: Wood should only be used when referring to a material, not just a tree by itself. I find it rather unlikely for anyone searching wood to want to find trees. In essence, unless the wooden object is actually used in some form, other than being a natural part of a tree, it shouldn't be tagged as wood. Additionally, have a new tag: tree_trunk, in instances where the trunk can be seen.

It could be that part of the confusion with this tag is that many people use the term "wood" (singular) as a synonym for "forest". I agree, though. "wood" as a tag should probably be used only for processed building materials, firewood, etc., apart from an actual living tree.

If it's important enough in an image to point out, an object made of wood should probably be tagged "wooden", rather than "wood". At least to me, "wood" implies a resource that is ready for use in some way (to burn, construct things etc.), and not an object that is made of wood.

There can also be trees made out of metal, or other materials.

Is the tag 'wood' necessary?

31h253 said:
Is the tag 'wood' necessary?

Nope.

I think if there is a significant amount of wood in an image then why not tag it?

Up to you but I think I'm going to un-implicate this as I always found it a bit... well not rock solid as trees can be made from other things and it really doesn't need to be there

Raiden_Gekkou said:
There can also be trees made out of metal, or other materials.

Aluminum Christmas trees, for example.

It's a bit like aliasing most species to "bone" because they have bones inside. A lot of pictures show a tree or parts of one, but not really any visible wood, or very little (bits of thin branches visible between leaves).

RedRaven said:
It could be that part of the confusion with this tag is that many people use the term "wood" (singular) as a synonym for "forest". I agree, though. "wood" as a tag should probably be used only for processed building materials, firewood, etc., apart from an actual living tree.

If it's important enough in an image to point out, an object made of wood should probably be tagged "wooden", rather than "wood". At least to me, "wood" implies a resource that is ready for use in some way (to burn, construct things etc.), and not an object that is made of wood.

On hindsight, yes, that would be fair. Wood for instances of actual shorwing trunks and/or branches, with both implicating wood. Wood de-implicated from tree.