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

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 02:42, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> Landuse of an "area" (there is no area=yes tag required or present) being
> replaced by the outline of a boundary seems like "too much is being
> subtracted from the map," though I suppose it's possible that's merely a
> fiction in my mind that simply needs to fully go "poof" and disappear.
> Still, seeing "dark green, with trees, even leaf types being rendered in
> certain ways..." disappear, I'd like to see some full pipelines of tagging
> and rendering, though I suppose I can imagine some.  I'm running the
> proposal through its gears in my mind and there are still some sticky
> shifts.  At least from a Carto perspective, until my brain gets retrained
> to look at a lot less dark green and little-trees symbols of this kind or
> that kind of leaves, a great deal of green being subtracted from Carto
> (which now represent forests and/or trees) is ahead.  I don't know how
> permanent that is or how much catching up there would be to do (in
> renderers, in brains...) during.
>

To help your gears, and maybe move things in a slightly  different
direction, consider this woodland which is also a nature reserve:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/554667459  A green area with tree
symbols (woodland) and a darker green outline (nature reserve).

Or this woodland which is a site of special scientific interest:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849961793
A green area with tree symbols (woodland) and a darker
green outline (SSSI).

The forestry proposal emphasises that its boundary may encompass
areas of not-trees: lakes, rocks, cleared ground where trees have
been felled and new trees have yet to be planted, etc.  On one hand
the cleared areas are part of forestry, and should be included in
the boundary.  OTOH, what is visible from a nearby hill are
areas of trees and areas of not-trees and in some ways it
might be nice to make the distinction so that people can
see that reality matches the map (it's always nice when we
can tweak reality so it matches what is on the map).

I wonder how we could handle that.  Well, woodland nature reserves
and SSSIs can have areas of not-trees which can be handled by
multipolygons and/or boundaries to the tree area, yet the
nature reserve/SSSI boundaries enclose both trees and not-trees.

Hmmm...  Have I jammed up your mental gears or applied some oil?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210210/218f1690/attachment.htm>