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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I can see that people are interested in tagging "a forest" which is an
entity with a name and a reference to a forest in it. Still, many of these
will not be mappable in OSM due to the fuzzy nature of their extent. This
is the kind of "forest" that could have a lake, a village, a meadow, scree,
or anything else within their limits. They can also have other "forests"
within (very typical to have several levels of nested toponyms for such
potentially huge objects). These forests are actually geographic regions
refering to a forest (e.g. Black Forest, Sherwood Forest, etc.).

Another kind of "forest"s are areas which have trees growing on them and
which are sufficiently big to develop a forest microclimate (and soil
structure, fauna, etc.). The size requirement isn't there to exclude small
forests or woodlands, but you will need a critical mass in order to have a
forest ecosystem develop, it is clear that 3 trees do not make a forest.
(Still, the latter sometimes get (micro)mapped like this in OSM, and
according to the definition, it is ok).

When I see the tag boundary=forest_compartment, I think about neither of
these. Rather a parcel or set of parcels, around here often signposted and
typically with a specific name and ref. These are rather "small" entities
usually. Example for such a sign:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66605237@N02/6413848233/in/photolist-aLLDCe-ffqkoN-CkyGop-bmqSzS-GuGgFZ-8hJYQW-o7DHbB-hnf4UK-23gESw7-EJBH1c-fKkrrf-avadCM-BAESt7-CLpF9C-hne9pu-2c3Jv95-hncuRe-oZGntY-4ygSaT-pUo9xh-bmqPqu-4EY1p3-6UGrMU-pWBM3E-dsdXtW-4j5iuK-s539xg-PaWWPu-dHwEGL-ehkoNy-2azM2MP-z14Ba7-pE7CAD-2aUGSEp-qWVHXB-914h7S-5ZQ3wY-7Xr68F-DVroi6-7XujwQ-HWH7Sq-fPAv1n-H5Sd9x-xyq6Z2-mGMhLQ-xiEanM-ayMVaY-hnb8zw-9tFDHj-9CKfPP

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210210/6bd5a667/attachment.htm>