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

David Marchal penegal.fr at protonmail.com
Mon Feb 8 10:14:45 UTC 2021


Hello.

The proposal is about the management limits of the forestry area (which include what you call forest in your example case). Forestry areas can, and often do, include non-wooded areas, such as screes or glades, which are still considered part and parcel of the forestry area, not as enclaves inside it. These are to be mapped with natural=* polygons, but, as long as they are considered part of the forestry area, mapping them as an enclave in it would be erroneus (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations#Land_cover)

Regards.
--
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le samedi, 6. février 2021 17:46, John D. <jdd3 at mail.ru> a écrit :

> in ill. we have areas called by law forest preserves (districts),70,000 acres, from 1916, today they are cutting
>
> down 1,000 + trees that do not belong, the point is, in what could be called an edit war, does your proposal
>
> take into account the fact that grass is inside the footprint of the woods, forest, trees ?
>
> because this person believes that grass is a separate polygon on the outside of the managed forest?
>
> so how does he do it in a road or entrance area the grass is on the outside of the woods, with polygons
>
> around the grass inside, outside woods, inside the woods
>
> -------- Forwarded message --------
> From: Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 8:13 PM -06:00
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations
> There is something I think that is missing from this discussion, and that is the distinction between a *boundary* and an *area*. This distinction has no basis other than my own opinion, but here goes.
>
> Something tagged as an "area" means that "the entire internal contents of this polygon has this meaning". Thus, when we tag natural=beach it means "this whole area is a beach" and when we tag an area "landuse=vineyard" we mean to say that the entire area is used for growing grapes. In the latter case, the landuse polygon may happen to coincide with the legal property boundary of the vineyard, but the area covered by the polygon is meant to cover the actual ground "used for grape growing" and not the extent of the vinter's land ownership.
>
> Meanwhile, a "boundary" is not an area, but a perimeter. The distinction is subtle but important. Fundamentally, a boundary has *legal* meaning, and indicates that "there is a human-constructed and (often) non-observable institutional difference demarcated by this line". The institutional difference might be administrative, political, legal, etc. Unique amongst OSM tagging, boundaries are not (necessarily) observable on the ground. Implicit in a boundary is the idea that they are independent of land use, land cover, or any other feature contained within. A boundary says nothing about what is contained within; it only describes the human institutional difference that occurs on either side of the perimeter.
>
> I am challenged to understand exactly which of these two categories are being described here.
>
> If we are describing "land which is used for forestry" then we must conclude that we are describing landuse, and thus we must turn to the much-maligned landuse=forest or perhaps some replacement of it.
>
> 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 - for example, a State Forest in the US or a Quebecois "Zone d'exploitation contrôlée" controlled harvesting zone.
>
> If we are simply describing "the private land ownership boundary of a piece of land", then it is cadastre and should not be mapped, consistent with the community stance on the mapping of private land ownership.
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 1:07 PM David Marchal via Tagging <[tagging at openstreetmap.org](http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3atagging@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.
>>
>> Awaiting your contributions,
>>
>> Regards.
>> --
>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210208/aa106d02/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list