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

[stevea]

On Dec 30, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we are describing "special forestry laws apply to this parcel of public land", then we *are* describing a boundary and the burden is on the proposal to show how this differs from and/or impacts boundary=protected_area, and how a mapper might interpret and apply that difference for various types of forestry lands worldwide

+1:  There is little or anything that I understand the proposal author's intentions to want to "do" (make, enter...) into OSM what cannot already be done with a well-tagged multipolygon tagged landuse=forest (perhaps made out of untagged or tagged member ways shared with other data structures in OSM).  (I sometimes half-jokingly call these topologically-complex agglomerations of OSM data structures with "shared ways" as "higher math").  A tag of boundary=forest as the proposal suggests seems wholly superfluous and the proposal fails to show me why this tag is needed.  The issue of members being tagged with role subarea either seems or is confused.

The Talk page now links to this thread.  I'm not sure where is the better place to continue discussion this list or the Talk page.  I think the Talk page.

SteveA