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

[Greg Troxel]

David Marchal <penegal at live.fr> writes:

> 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.

(bad link)

I see.  Well then that could make sense.

>> 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.

If the name goes with a set of polygons, a relation sounds appropriate.
That seems like a general rule, not just forests.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20151127/ff3c2a02/attachment.sig>