<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/01/19 18:44, nwastra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:37971150-3ECE-47CE-B0FF-E780758CA962@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br class="">
<div>
<div class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi<br class="">
the gazetted State Forest boundaries are not rendered
currently on the default map on the OpenStreetMap
(OpenStreetMap Carto).<br class="">
landuse=forest is considered as forestry use and
natural=wood are natural wooded areas not subject to
forestry but both are rendered the same.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">When the State Forest is mapped in isolation
the boundary of the landuse=forest defines the area but as
soon as an area of trees is mapped extending beyond the
State Forest boundary, as is expected, then the State
Forest boundary is not depicted.<br class="">
<br class="">
Tag:boundary=protected_area<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area</a>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">After looking at the options listed on
wiki link above, along with the Nature-protected-areas
like national parks (and all the other <a
href="http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/abbreviations"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">CAPAD types</a> ), I
feel that boundary=protected_area is reasonable tag
for the gazetted <b class="">State Forest boundaries</b>
with further classification as <b class="">Resources-protected-areas</b>.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">I feel the the State Forests are
boundaries where tree resources are protected or
reserved for future forestry operations and need to be
defined by their boundaries on the osm.</div>
<div class="">There are strict rules covering these
areas and we should be readily able to see them on the
map. <br class="">
<div class="">State Reserve and Timber Reserve in
CAPAD don’t capture the State Forests.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">On the <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area#Resources-protected-areas"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Resources-protected-areas</a> for
particular countries I note that the United States
has listed <b class="">State Forest</b> under
protect_class 15, this being described at the
Resources-protected-area section as …</div>
<div class="">15<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><b
class="">location condition</b>: floodwater
retention area, protection forest, grazing land, … </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I propose that we also add ’State
Forest’ to protect_class 15 on the
Resources-protected-area table.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">With the most recent changes
toOpenStreetMap Carto this would enable rendering of
the State Forest boundaries in the same manner as
all the other protected area boundaries.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Another partial solution would be to
render landuse=forest differently than the landcover
tags but that is unlikely from my reading of the
tagging and rendering groups and if two separately
gazetted forestry boundaries shared a border the
boundary between the two would not be depicted on
the map anyway. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Personally I would remove any 'state forest' (or any other forestry)
areas from any tagged natural=tree areas. There are at lest some
that have been included in those tagged areas. <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>