<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    I'm not clear on how boundary=forestry &
    boundary=protected_area, protect_class=6 are distinguished.  In the
    wiki you say that some protected_areas should be forestry because
    the primary goal is forestry.  That seems very subjective.     In
    the wiki you say that US Nat Forest are protected_area, but French
    forests aren't, even though they have the same protections?   I see
    a lot of confusion and overlap here.   <br>
    I think there needs to be a sharper division. <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/13/21 4:24 AM, David Marchal via
      Tagging wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8iPMuJnJUoXB3ctphgbGjlkJZ6ig_6E_Mw-n9hvWfVBgxhM9IHA70zwyYtjxD-NS3VCtnLw3W4VyjDUzOeCbpGdGiqwsbOiqo75IOhcbGbM=@protonmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div>Dear mappers and taggers,<br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>The boundary=forestry(_compartment) proposal (<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations"
          moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations</a>)
        has recently known significant changes: it now</div>
      <ul>
        <li>deprecates landuse=forest, as it replaces it and removes its
          confusion between forestry areas and wooded areas;<br>
        </li>
        <li>designates natural=wood for modelling wooded areas, managed
          or not;<br>
        </li>
        <li>deprecates landcover=trees, which is a duplicate of
          natural=wood;<br>
        </li>
        <li>includes more explainations and examples about the problems
          with current tagging and how the new tagging proposes to
          handle them.<br>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <div>Thanks to all people who reviewed the proposal and made
        suggestions or asked for clarifications! Do you folks have
        questions or comments the proposal still does not address?<br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Awaiting your answers,<br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Regards.<br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div class="protonmail_signature_block">
        <div class="protonmail_signature_block-user
          protonmail_signature_block-empty">
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton">Sent with <a
            href="https://protonmail.com" target="_blank"
            moz-do-not-send="true">ProtonMail</a> Secure Email.<br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>