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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I think that would be a fine approach also, and I only listed
boundary=forestry as that's the proposal currently on the table.  The bonus
for landuse=forestry is that it doesn't trounce on boundary=protected_area
for areas that are both forestry and classified under IUCN definition
(probably Class V or VI)   Either way, landuse=forest should be deprecated
at the same time as whatever-replacement-for-forestry gets approved.  That
approach would still allow for forestry compartments to be boundaries to be
defined within the larger forestry area.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:04 AM Marc_marc <marc_marc at mailo.com> wrote:

> Le 09.02.21 à 16:24, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit :
> > Existing forestry areas tagged landuse=forest
> > can be replaced with boundary=forest
>
> why a boundary=* value for that ?
> landuse=forestry was proposed a long time ago,
> it should simply be put forward a little more.
> It has the huge advantage of being semantically correct,
> not being able to put landuse=forest on the same object,
> eliminating the first one if the second one is adopted.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210209/778e158e/attachment.htm>