[Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

[David Marchal]

> From: gdt at ir.bbn.com
> To: penegal at live.fr
> CC: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500
> 
> 
> David Marchal  writes:
> 
>> 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with
>> boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern
>> Europe, so geographically limited; others map each parcel with
> 
> (We don't do this in the US, as far as I know; sounds like allotments
> for forestry?)
> 
> I am guessing there is some biggish region used for forestry, and then
> within it there are specific areas leased/etc. to individuals/companies?
> I would tag landuse=forest around the whole thing.
> 
> Then, representing ownership/etc. within is really just like parcels for
> houses, which so far OSM has declined to put in the db.
In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on their corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order to ease orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, restricted access parts of forests, nor about their ownership, only the publicly-displayed number; I don't think every parcels are labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that some contributors already started to do so, like here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this question to see if there was a recommended way to do so. 

>> 2) national/municipal forests: numerous forests, here in France, are
>> municipal or national ones — the latter being called “forêt domaniale”
>> —; many of them are labelled as such on road signs, and they are often
>> named after this parameter — like “forêt domaniale de Dabo”, Dabo
>> being the neighboring village —, so I think they should be mapped, but
>> how? Should I, there again, use a boundary relation and tag it
>> boundary=forest? This seems to be the wider-used solution and the most
>> consistent one, but boundary=forest isn't in the uses of boundary
>> relations documented on the wiki, and I read warnings on
>> help.openstreetmap.org and MLs against such undocumented uses, so I
>> prefer asking here: should I use this solution? Another?
> 
> I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon.
> Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a
> school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that.
The problem is that uch forests can be fragmented, composed of several disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a whole, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589 so, again, I searched for a recommended way to do so, but I only found this unofficial tagging, mostly consistent for me, but I prefered asking for opinions on this question before using this tagging scheme.

> We do have boundary=protected_area, but I think that's a mistake, and
> we should instead tag the properties on the closed way to denote the
> state of the inside. But the notion of a boundary vs a property of the
> inside of a polygon is semantically messy to start with.
No, I wouldn't use such tagging for this usage, it would be too far of the intended use to do anything more than messing with the data.

> One could argue that every area tag goo on a polygon could instead be
> boundary=foo. I don't think that's helpful.


 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20151127/325ea5b7/attachment-0001.html>