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

[David Marchal]

Andy,

Yes, it seems I overestimated, thinking my opinion was the mainstream opinion. Thank you and SteveA for pointing that out.

Regards.

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le mardi 9 février 2021 19:58, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On 09/02/2021 18:32, David Marchal via Tagging wrote:
>
> > Besides, landuse and natural tags are essentially understood by
> > mappers and renderers as related to features that should never overlap.
>
> I don't think that that is generally true - see earlier comments on this
> list about whether any spot on the globe should have only one landuse,
> previous discussions about landuse vs landcover, etc.
>
> It is true that some people (including some frequent posters here) think
> that, but it's also true that there are significant areas of (say)
> landuse=residential with other land uses within (see for e.g.
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/13q1 ).  Similarly, most renderers that I'm
> aware of will happily draw those other landuses on top of the larger
> landuse areas "underneath" (like the allotments at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25172591 in that example).
>
> I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, but I don't think that
> "landuse and natural tags are essentially understood by mappers and
> renderers as related to features that should never overlap".  I suspect
> that many mappers are happy just to add the features that they know
> exist, and tend to let their editor pick tags and values for them.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging