<div>Bert,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Reading you, I'm starting to think that it will be near impossible to manage what you're talking about in the proposal, but I'll try. Don't think I make harsh comments, but I'm trying to unmess my mind, because what you describe is very, very different of what I know.<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">ProtonMail</a> Secure Email.<br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> Le lundi, 15. février 2021 15:31, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com> a écrit :<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span style="font-family: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) and
tagging to present a "westerner forestry" philosophy. But I
remain with my previous vision that your proposal, which is in
no way incorrect, has too much conditions and limitations to be
considered as a top level boundary class. In this format, as you
can already see from the many questions and objections, it is
not suitable to be used on a top level as was done with hazard
and others, which cover a more broader spectrum of management /
use cases and were specific issues are addressed with
attribution keys.</span><br></p></blockquote><div>These conditions are there to mitigate possible contestations about the area purpose/limits/use as a forestry area. You probably saw that I'm a westerner, and our customs and habits are often way more strict and organized than what you describe; proposing something not structured enough would, in my mind, give a stillborn proposal.<br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span style="font-family: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 that you propose to tag the whole area as forestry and
protect_area with IUCN classification is of minor importance,
since your primary boundary identification remains Forestry. I
think that is definitively wrong and should be the opposite.
Protected_area with IUCN classification is always more
significant.</span><br></p></blockquote><div>If the local laws does not consider the area protected, I think it will be difficult to explain to mappers that it should still be mapped as a protected area. In my country, protected areas are generaly seen as something very important and very different of non protected areas, so telling people to boundary=protected_area on most wooded areas would most likely lead to something like "What's this weirdo? I'll stay with landuse=forest.". Again, I'm not being harsh, I try to explain why I think your reasoning would be inapplicable.<br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span style="font-family: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 any other more
general term, under which the "western forestry" is defined with
a new or existing atrribution key:value. Much the same way as
has been done with hazard zones.<br> This would allow to use the same attribution keys for other
areas, as species management, wetland management,
water_resource_management (introduced without proposal !) or
even more natural resources. As you already mentioned forestry
can mean that other natural resources are managed under
"forestry" besides wood extraction, but still to much
limitations to be considered as a top-level boundary tag.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Verdana">I see most confusion and discussions arising
from the very strict boundary requirements in your proposal.
Boundaries are in the non western world not always, even I dare
to say, mostly not clearly defined.<br> Again this is going to be a long mail for which I apologise but
I see no other way to make it clear. So allow me to illustrate
with some examples from my home Uganda:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Verdana">1. Most wetlands and forests are under the
jurisdiction of the Uganda National Forests Authority (NFA).
They have a mandate to maintain and exploit these wetlands and
forests defined by law. All those forests and wetlands (the
majority here) are thus "government land" and called "Central
Forest Reserves", within these areas the "Uganda National
Forestry and Tree Planting Act" has to be implemented by the
NFA, in some cases even if there was never any "woody
vegetation". So far so good, we have an act and a clear
definition of forestry in the law. However, the government never
gazetted the official boundaries of most of these Forest
Reserves. Even more, they were so many that smaller forest were
assigned to be managed by local governments and called "Local
Forest Reserves", but also for these never clear boundaries were
gazetted, even worse, the Local Authorities lack the resources
or personnel to implement the Forestry act. So in practice very
few boundaries are clearly marked in the field. Then if they are
marked, due to encroachment and the communities argue about the
fact that they were never gazetted, if the NFA puts boundary
stones, often in peoples gardens, these are removed by the
community and huge commotion starts. So if I would follow your
proposal, none or very few could be mapped with
boundary=forestry.</span><br></p><p><span style="font-family:Verdana">2. Because of 1., someone connected and the
lack of official maps or even a cadastral register that overs
the whole country, someone connected to the NFA decided they
will use OSM to map all the Central Forest reserves, very rough
and luckily with a fixme tag that they "are not official
boundaries". All were mapped as landuse=forest, even those were
by far no more tree is present ! In many cases we, the community
already mapped other landuses from field checks, and natural
tagging. But again lots of commotion since the NFA action caused
all of these areas now to be rendered as forests (under the
forestry act). We started to change their forest with relations
with boundary=protected_area and protect_class=15. Still many
unhappy users and unhappy NFA because the borders didn't
render. So we changed it to protect_class=5 or 6 because it is
rendered. We couldn't find any official document where the IUCN
classes are connected to the local legislation. But still, "not
official boundaries" remains, and except from some historical
maps hard to determine were they are. In the field, for the few
that are there they are often on private land and not verifiable
without entering encroached "private" property and danger for
life and limb. Still, if I refer to your proposal, none of this
would be a candidate for your proposal !</span><br></p><p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Example on OSM: <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677824323">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677824323</a> and <a 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>.</span><br></p></blockquote><div>I'm sorry to say that, but I'm dubious about the fact that such a situation can be accurately mapped; it sounds that there is no agreement about who uses the land, what for, by which means, and along which limits. Please don't understand that I'm having some sort of racist point of view here, but I can't understand how to map something that isn't even clear to the locals. That is not simply related to my proposal, it is related to the simple possibility to map such a messy situation.<br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span style="font-family:Verdana">3. Regarding indigenous use. If there are
people who clearly marked their territory it is them. They mark
it by making marks on trees or other "natural means". However,
again not official but they are allowed to harvest, hunt and
extract wood from the forest. They do it in a sustainable way
but in some cases, targetting specific valuable species like
mahogany trees (by the way protected but they don't care, they
have to make a living somehow) are extracted for commercial
purposes, and replanted but the old monumental trees are all
disappearing. Not all of them do this but some. There areas are
sometimes located partially or in full in national parks but
also on non-protected land, common, government land but in their
eyes it is their land, not regulated as in reservations like in
the US. So, again referring to your proposal: boundaries,
officially not gazetted, check in the field yes they marked
their boundaries where they are in their opinion (lots of
conflicts with other surrounding communities) but they are
officially mandated and allowed to harvest, hunt and extract
wood in a sustainable way. So your proposal boundary=forestry,
check, yes all conditions as described fulfilled although it is
not, because the main activity there or main purpose is to allow
them to continue their traditional lifestyle of harvesting and
hunting, but hey, who doesn't like a nice smartphone or fancy
bike to run through the forest and impress your neighbours...
they are people like us and deserve to enjoy the same rights and
luxuries.</span><br></p></blockquote><div>Here, the limits are verifiable using the local marks, and one can see traces of the forestry works, so, if I told precendently that it is not subject to my proposal, it seems that I was wrong: what you describe here is clearly forestry and eligible to mapping under the current proposal terms.<br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span style="font-family: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... . Mandated mostly to the NFA who lacks financial
and human resources to implement the act, and no clear
boundaries. Some of them located in nature reserves, some of
them ramsar some of them not. Your proposal: Clear boundaries
no, one can question even if it is possible to define them
because the wetlands are sometimes seasonal and some of them
shift ! Wood extraction = yes, sustainable = sometimes, use of
other natural resources yes, protected area = different
interpretations, so I believe according to you no forestry ?
Although some of these forest are like islands in the wetlands
nd thus have a clear but ever changing boundary, not marked with
other physical means in the field.</span><br></p></blockquote><div>Well, again, if the limits are not clear, I'm dubious about the fact that it can be mapped, whatever the tagging. The simple fact of drawing entities here seems very difficult and subject to constant discord.<br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span style="font-family: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. Because of the rhinos the whole sanctuary, and
thus the forest reserve is fenced. Resources used: wood
extraction / charcoal burning = yes, animal farm, breeding
(species management), yes, nature reserve = no, compartments =
yes (compartments, fenced are made to prevent overgrazing by the
rhinos so they are forcefully moved through the forest). Clear
boundaries = yes. SO where do we end up if we follow your
advise ? Boundary=protected_area = no, boundary = forestry = yes
but its an animal sanctuary / breeding farm, ok I can tag that
additionally. But again practical problem: they also make a lot
of money with tourism, this caught the eye of some opportunistic
government people so they decided to stop the concession and
take over the sanctuary, as justification: violations of the
Forestry and Tree Planting act. SO are we again going to risk
live and limb to define it as boundary = forestry ? </span><br></p><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:Verdana">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 of natural reserves
and where we use carefully and diverse chosen attribution to
provide details, of which "western forestry" is just one
variant. <br> Please do comment and advise how we can handle these examples ,
I am sure many similar challenges exist throughout the world !
And yes be bold, I fully support deprecating landuse=forest
because that is even worse !<br> <br> Greetings, Bert Araali</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, for your last example, it is very tricky. It seems to vastly exceed the proposal scope, as it also have some aspects of landuse=meadow, and, again, locals do not agree about what the land is. I'm not sure I can give a sound advice in such a situation, but, then again, let's try. How is this currently mapped?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards.<br></div>