<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;">Multipolygons were considered but boundary was preferred because such areas are often subject to a separate set of laws, akin to a protected area, but less strict, so it was more akin to a boundaried area than to a simple multipolygon.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;">That being said, as you said, this changes almost nothing for mapping.<br></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;">Regards.<br></div>
<div class="protonmail_signature_block" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;">
<div class="protonmail_signature_block-user protonmail_signature_block-empty">
<div><br></div>
</div>
<div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton">
Sent with <a target="_blank" href="https://protonmail.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">ProtonMail</a> secure email.
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div class="protonmail_quote">
------- Original Message -------<br>
Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com> schrieb am Freitag, 25. März 2022 um 15:09:<br><br>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">Am Fr., 25. März 2022 um 07:15 Uhr schrieb David Marchal via Tagging <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:14px">Hello!</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:14px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:14px">As the proposal author, I would say that type=boundary being mandatory also for simple polygons is a remnant from a previous similar proposal, which only allowed relations. The approved tagging scheme allows plain polygons, for which a type=* tag is not supposed to be mandatory, so I would say the wiki should be clarified to state that type=boundary is only mandatory when the boundary=forest entity is a relation, and not for simple polygons.</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:14px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:14px">I'll amend the wiki accordingly.<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>+1, it should say that "type" should not be put on simple polygons, because it is a tag reserved for relations.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>I'd have mildly preferred `type=multipolygon`, but didn't speak up because `boundary` and `multipolygon` are nearly synonymous nowadays, and I can live with either.</div></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" dir="ltr">73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin</div></div>
</blockquote><br>
</div>