[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations

[Warin]

On 31/12/20 7:39 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Can you provide some examples of where this new tag (boundary=forest) 
> would make sense?
>
> It seems to represent a type of forestry management system which does 
> not exist in North America, central America or Indonesia where I have 
> personal experience.


It makes sense in Australia.

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5806844#map=11/-32.8202/150.6754

https://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/


>
> "boundary=forest - this relation is used to describe a forest, 
> understood as a wide area considered as a distinct piece of land, 
> largely but not necessarily only composed of wooded areas."
>
> Then it is mentioned that the boundary=forest might consist of many 
> small boundary=forest_compartment features 
> (boundary=forest_compartment) - 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dforest_compartment 
> - which is more or less a parcel, similar to mapping a residential or 
> commercial plot or property?
>
> This seems like mapping cadastral information (land ownership) which 
> is often not possible, though at least for boundary=forest_compartment 
> it is claimed that in some countries these are marked by posts at the 
> corners or cutlines between, so in that case those features could be 
> mapped.


The same issue applies to mapping National Parks, parks ,recreation 
grounds, commercial areas etc.. I see no difference here and no real 
reason to raise it.

>
> Perhaps it would make more sense to map the corner boundary markers as 
> marker=post rather than creating areas or relations for each parcel - 
> the marker posts are verifiable and can be used for orientation when 
> walking around.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:07 AM David Marchal via Tagging 
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hello, there.
>
>     I designed a proposal for mapping forests and their compartments,
>     by separating these features from underlying landuse/natural
>     features, thus allowing to link non-wooded areas to their
>     belonging forest :
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforest(_compartment)_relations#Features.2FPages_affected
>
>     You may, and are invited to, comment this proposal on its
>     discussion page
>     (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforest(_compartment)_relations),
>     where a topic already waits your comments for improving the proposal.
>

The proposal sates

"/forest/ is used in its main definition, i.e. a wooded land managed to 
produce wood for human consumption and uses"

but is defined as

"relation for mapping administrative forest boundaries, independently of 
landuse/natural tags"


--------------------------

Question is this ONLY for  land managed to produce wood for human 
consumption and uses? If so the definition should be changed.

If the definition is to apply then ""/forest/ is used in its main 
definition, i.e. a wooded land managed to produce wood for human 
consumption and uses" needs to be changed?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201231/70f0284f/attachment.htm>