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

[David Marchal]

Le mercredi, 10. février 2021 14:50, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> a écrit :

> I believe it is not helpful to include lakes, rocks or scree in "forestry" areas. I can understand that from a macro perspective, in a "forestry" area there might be lakes, e.g. if you say "the Amazon rainforest is a forestry area" (exaggerating here to make the point) but going more into detail, you can hardly argue that a lake is used for forestry, or scree. In OSM we tend to expect that the macro view is represented by analyzing the detailed mapping. We generalize as few as we think makes sense (and according to the time we dedicate), but in principle we strive for a high level of detail, because you can always compute more abstract generalizations, but you can never get detail that isn't there.
>
> I also do not believe it is helpful to see sawmills as part of forestry. We do not see furniture factories as part of residential landuse, do we?

The point is, non wooded areas are rountinely parts of forestry areas. This is also something I explained in the proposal: "Such areas are still often considered by foresters or general public as part of the wooded area, as they may be:

- managed by the manager of the surrounding forest;
- under reforestation;
- lands with a distinct, wood-related ecosystem (glades for instance, which essentially exist because they are in a wooded area, else they would be called grasslands);
- legally considered part of the surrounding wooded land, i.e. they are subject to the same subset of laws, rights and obligations ([[w:fr: Régime forestier]Régime forestier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fr:R%C3%A9gime_forestier) in France, for instance)."

Mapping these as part of the forestry area simply reflects the reality; the fact that they are not covered by trees would be managed by natural/landuse=* entities. If these areas are not considered part of the forestry area, they should be modelled as enclaves in it. If the forestry area has a sawmill in it, and the forestry area consider it part and parcel of the said forestry area, I think we should reflect this choice and the reality of the area, and not exclude it of the forestry area. Map what's on the ground.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210210/565c27ae/attachment.htm>