<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Don't get too discouraged David, don't start rewriting stuff yet,
this is just my perception. Let us help to improve things.</p>
<p>If we look at the existing tagging scheme for protected_area lets
try to modify this, using existing tags as much as possible. Doing
that leads me to a preliminary proposal as:</p>
<p>New top level boundary value, something like = "natural_reserve"
(just a proposal, feel free to improve), this widens the scope as
much as possible.<br>
To loosen up your boundary limitations: "bordertype" (not
consistently used but could be a good addition) =
official_gazetted (where this would mean it is officially gazetted
by an authority) / estimated (is just an estimation but can't be
verified to be exact, for whatever reason) / official_complete (it
is gazetted/ + checked and marked correctly in the field) /
official_field (it is marked in the field by an authorised body) /
unofficial _field (it is marked and verified or verifiable in the
field but the markings are applied by a non-officially authorised
body) etc.., others might exist. Existing tags like source,
operator, owner etc.. can be combined to even make things more
clear.<br>
This makes it possible to map all kinds of boundaries and makes it
clear how reliable this information is, additional information can
be requested in f.i. fixme. It allows to use all these types of
boundaries with all kinds of nature_reserves.</p>
<p>This would also mean it is possible to deprecate
leisure=nature_reserve ! Boundaries can be defined as closed ways,
relations or multi-polygons.<br>
</p>
<p>Same as we have a protection_type key, create a new reserve_type
key to describe how it is (primarily) managed / or what the
purpose is: this could be forestry / species / wetland /
indigenous etc... <br>
</p>
<p>All other tagging remain the same. To solve the problem of
duplicate use / tagging with protected area, we faced the same
problem in the existing scheme. So what we did was we just draw
multiple boundaries (with a small gap) around each other and tag
each of them individually. This way we stay objective, it is not
up to the mapper to decide what has the highest priority or to be
aware of all legislation. So we could get a
boundary=natural_reserve with reserve_type=forestry and an
additional boundary=protected_area with an IUCN protect_class. Not
discriminating nor prioritised.</p>
<p>Could work for all the examples I've given and the ones already
mentioned in the proposal or in these discussions.</p>
<p>This is just a quick and dirty idea, so any suggestions and
objections are welcome. Your proposal of how to map is good,
works for all cases and reflects what is already used but not
documented.<br>
</p>
<p>So far you have absolutely not been discriminating, and I am sure
it was not your intention with this proposal, don't be afraid. I
am very happy someone is bold enough to take up this difficult
issue. Keep going !<br>
</p>
<p>And because you asked for it: the Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary: ,<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187122958">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187122958</a>
but it has little detail but the tagging scheme may be
interesting.</p>
<p>Greetings, Bert Araali<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/02/2021 17:31, Bert -Araali- Van
Opstal wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7cbd75e6-d9ba-85f2-3c87-e272950eb9b3@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><font face="Verdana">Thank you for your answer David. It is
clear to me and your justifications underline it, that it is
your intention to present a solution in mapping (boundary
driven) ...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">As I see it all your forestry proposals
would fit under a protect_class 15, or one of the IUCN
classes. Your proposal says that if a forestry area is also a
protected_area, an additional protect_class should be added,
meaning ...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">This leaves us with areas which, if you
allow me to refer back to protect_class 12 / 14 / 15 / 19 that
apply to resource-protected areas. In stead of defining very
specific "forestry" boundaries, what is against defining a
more general therm, like "natural-resource-area" or ...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I see most confusion and discussions
arising from the very strict boundary requirements ...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">1. Most wetlands and forests are under the
jurisdiction of the Uganda National Forests Authority (NFA).
...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">2. Because of 1., someone connected and
the lack of official maps or even a cadastral register ...</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Example on OSM: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677824323">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677824323</a>
and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/711261339#map=16/0.0825/32.4835">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/711261339#map=16/0.0825/32.4835</a>.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">3. Regarding indigenous use. If there are
people who clearly marked their territory it is them. ...<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">4. The wetlands. All our wetlands are
government land. In some of them the government allows
extraction of papyrus reeds (for roofs), some have designated
areas for rice fields, used a sewage filters, drinking water
extraction and... the swamps, marshes and other wood covered
areas as "forestry areas", used for wood extraction, charcoal
burning etc... . <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">5. As last example, Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary.
This sanctuary is located in a forest reserve, concession of
NFA. They breed rhinos and also the rhinos maintain the scrub
and forest in a natural way, but with support of human
intervention. ...<br>
<br>
<br>
That is why I think a less restrictive general new boundary
value would be much more suitable, which allows us to
carefully propose a general term for the management ...<br>
<br>
Greetings, Bert Araali</font></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:_hayEA_5zUUtAzH1SyFxkYoflZ6r7zd4T4Zu8AAJd19w9oJOLXt6_naJrgk6x8kdtGwCOl7tq6oewyw1p6qpV263FhjQpKP3H9tzbG6g8zQ=@protonmail.com"><br>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>