<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/12/20 7:39 am, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPhQMT6F0yFdM1cFVfd7b0mYCtaBc1WuTvSxbYzH=3ypmQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Can you provide some examples of where this
new tag (boundary=forest) would make sense?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems to represent a type of forestry management
system which does not exist in North America, central
America or Indonesia where I have personal experience.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>It makes sense in Australia. <br>
</p>
<p>See
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5806844#map=11/-32.8202/150.6754">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5806844#map=11/-32.8202/150.6754</a></p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/">https://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPhQMT6F0yFdM1cFVfd7b0mYCtaBc1WuTvSxbYzH=3ypmQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
"boundary=forest - this relation is used to describe a
forest, understood as a wide area considered as a
distinct piece of land, largely but not necessarily only
composed of wooded areas."</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>Then it is mentioned that the boundary=forest might
consist of many small boundary=forest_compartment
features (boundary=forest_compartment) - <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dforest_compartment"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dforest_compartment</a>
- which is more or less a parcel, similar to mapping a
residential or commercial plot or property?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This seems like mapping cadastral information (land
ownership) which is often not possible, though at least
for boundary=forest_compartment it is claimed that in
some countries these are marked by posts at the corners
or cutlines between, so in that case those features
could be mapped. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The same issue applies to mapping National Parks, parks
,recreation grounds, commercial areas etc.. I see no difference
here and no real reason to raise it. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPhQMT6F0yFdM1cFVfd7b0mYCtaBc1WuTvSxbYzH=3ypmQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps it would make more sense to map the corner
boundary markers as marker=post rather than creating
areas or relations for each parcel - the marker posts
are verifiable and can be used for orientation when
walking around.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- Joseph Eisenberg</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:07
AM David Marchal via Tagging <<a
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>Hello, there.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I designed a proposal for mapping forests and their
compartments, by separating these features from underlying
landuse/natural features, thus allowing to link non-wooded
areas to their belonging forest : <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforest(_compartment)_relations#Features.2FPages_affected"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforest(_compartment)_relations#Features.2FPages_affected</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You may, and are invited to, comment this proposal on its
discussion page (<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforest(_compartment)_relations"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforest(_compartment)_relations</a>),
where a topic already waits your comments for improving the
proposal.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The proposal sates <br>
</p>
<p>"<i>forest</i> is used in its main definition, i.e. a wooded land
managed to produce wood for human consumption and uses" <br>
</p>
<p>but is defined as <br>
</p>
<p>"relation for mapping administrative forest boundaries,
independently of landuse/natural tags"</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>--------------------------</p>
<p>Question is this ONLY for land managed to produce wood for human
consumption and uses? If so the definition should be changed. <br>
</p>
<p>If the definition is to apply then ""<i>forest</i> is used in its
main definition, i.e. a wooded land managed to produce wood for
human consumption and uses" needs to be changed?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>