[Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Warin]

Similar problems with other features.

Possibly use a site relation?

Map each individual parcel as a simple way with the reference.

Then place each parcel into a site relation and then the common tags on 
the site relation.

Something like that, look up the site relation on the wiki for details, 
masy only be a proposal.


On 10/10/19 07:04, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested 
> here a while back.  This isn't official or anything, but moving 
> towards tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important.
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:32 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
> <matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>     9 Oct 2019, 18:11 by penegal at live.fr <mailto:penegal at live.fr>:
>
>         Hello, there.
>
>         My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The
>         boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what
>         is rendered is tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and
>         its parcels, which leads to rendering it twice, as you can see
>         here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides,
>         such forest are often mistagged for the renderer: as the
>         contributor wants the parcel number rendered, he puts it in
>         the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I assume it should
>         belong.
>
>         So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag
>         forest parcels, their number and them belonging to a forest?
>
>     boundary=forest_compartment?
>
>     Is there anything wrong with this tagging
>     scheme (except that mapping this
>     kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).
>
>     All problems that you mention are
>     about tagging for renderer.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191010/59294389/attachment.html>