[Tagging] Deprecation of landuse=forest (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations)
kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Mon Apr 19 10:29:58 UTC 2021
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:56 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> On 19 Apr 2021, at 10:45, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Typical in your area. In my area * State Forest are designated areas that
> can and do include areas without trees (e.g. camp grounds, huts, buildings,
> water bodies, etc).
> which clearly shows that landuse=forest is not the tag for these. It is a
> tag for areas where trees grow. No trees no tag
> These are all part of the area used to produce timber and as a landuse the
> best fit is landuse=forest so far.
> it is not. We cannot all have our own definitions for everything, we must
> agree on the same meaning of tags so that the data is useful.
And we reach an impasse, since every proposal to date that has proposed any
alternative tagging for 'State Forest' areas (common in the US as well as
Australia) has failed. In several cases, a large proportion of the 'no'
voters has asserted that whatever tagging scheme is proposed is redundant
with `landuse=forest`. I am forced to conclude that there is a significant
minority of voters that simply do not want these objects to have any
approved tagging scheme at all.
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging