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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 1. Feb. 2021 um 23:17 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <
kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > On 31 Jan 2021, at 16:04, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > OSM's data model presumes that a government-managed area is managed for
>> a single purpose, but that's not the way that the USFS or BLM (or for that
>> matter NYS DEC) operate.
>> in addition, a National park status or other nature reserve status does
>> not imply all of the area is necessarily owned or managed by the
>> government, it rather means there are prescriptions and limitations of
>> possible use that every owner/operator has to respect.
>
>
> That depends on the jurisdiction.
>


yes, I just wanted to point out that it may be the case. For example in
Germany nature reserves are usually private property, but the owner can not
do whatever they like, rather they must obey to sometimes quite limiting
prescriptions. Legally this is based on the social obligation of property,
which is maybe not a concept that you can find everywhere.

National parks in Germany are just a subset of nature reserves. Huge parts
may be in public ownership, but alse here there may be private owners.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210203/b500c01b/attachment.htm>