[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=forestry( compartment) relations

David Marchal penegal.fr at protonmail.com
Sun Apr 25 07:02:06 UTC 2021


Hello, there.

The vote has ended; I intended to let it open beyond the usual two weeks, in order to gather additional opinions, but someone took on himself to close it anyway.

The number of votes went through the roof; at the official deadline, the proposal received 72 yes votes, 72 no votes and 3 abstentions. The proposal failed to gather consensus.

That being said, the number of differing opinions show that the proposal is not vain, and that there is something to be improved or clarified about forest mapping; this sentence may sound obvious, but the vote comments suggest that some mappers were not aware that there even was an issue for most of the community.

Given the importance of the issue, I'll take some weeks to review the votes and analyze them in order to understand what are the mainstream opinions and the main problems the community found in the proposal, and then explain what could be done to solve this issue.

Thanks to all voters! This vote and the debates around it were exciting and led to numerous ideas to improve the proposal. Something can be done about this issue, but what? That, I'll try to tell in the next message.

Regards.

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le mardi, 6. avril 2021 23:10, David Marchal <penegal.fr at protonmail.com> a écrit :

> Hello, there.
>
> After a relatively quiet RFC period, during which the few comments made have been answered, the proposal is ready for a second vote. For the record, the first vote was aborted due to a failure to address disputed points raised during the first RFC period. The proposal was then subject to heavy rewriting and simplification, as well as taking into account the huge objections left apart when the first vote was started.
>
> For the record, this proposal mainly aims to solve the landuse=forest/natural=wood mess by deprecating the first, leaving other existing tags for the physical land description, and redefining the modelling of managed forests with a more flexible boundary tagging scheme, while also including a standardized compartment tagging scheme. You may find the proposal and vote here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations
>
> Regards.





More information about the Tagging mailing list