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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

>
> > So, now the issue has been raised, let's ask: ladies and gentlemen,
> should the proposal deprecate landuse=forest, as Zelonewolf asks, and leave
> natural=wood for describing a physical wooded land, letting
> boundary=forestry tell the area being managed or not?
>
> If I saw a step-by-step plan of how the proposal proposes we do this, I
> could answer this better.  If the answer is "by attrition, slowly, simply
> by the 'now older' tagging falling away somehow," then, no, that would
> simply be "confusion-squared" (or cubed).  If the answer is "a large-scale
> bot-oriented re-tagging is proposed..." that is not (currently) part of
> this proposal and has its own issues that the community would need to
> address.


If I may clarify what I'm suggesting.  Right now, because of "6 ways to tag
a forest", there is no way to tell whether a particular landuse=forest
represents a forestry area or merely woods - with the possible exception of
landuse=forest + managed=yes, but this combination is tiny.  Therefore,
there is no way to do a global mechanical update to replace landuse=forest
with other tagging - the information simply isn't present in the tagging
along.  On *small* scales, if local mappers know which interpretation of
forest was employed within a particular area, or if local mappers are aware
of which areas are specifically forestry areas, or if specific naming
conventions or other tagging were used on forestry areas, one could imagine
local mappers performing a surgical, mechanical re-tagging within targeted
areas where they have local knowledge.

Beyond this shortcut, mappers would simply have to make determinations as
to whether areas tagged landuse=forest represent actual forestry areas or
merely wooded ones.  However, they could be assisted by:
1. A firm, clear indication emblazoned on the landuse=forest wiki page that
the tag is deprecated
2. Validator errors/warnings that indicate that landuse=foreset is
deprecated

Rather than "confused" I would say that landuse=forest is "ambiguous".  By
deprecating landuse=forest, we clear the confusion over which tags mean
what and provide a mechanism to resolve the ambiguity over time.  Each
resolved landuse=forest area (either by replacing it with natural=wood or
new forestry tagging) increases information in the database, steadily
improving the present "confused" situation with unambiguous meaning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210209/304e9705/attachment-0001.htm>