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

[David Marchal]

Le mercredi, 10. février 2021 15:09, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :

> In the context of landcover, that would be scrub and might later become trees.
> In the context of a managed forest, that is still part of the forestry boundary
> (assuming it is within an area that has been felled and is not a stray seedling
> in an agricultural field or a roadside verge).

Such things happen routinely in what is called even-aged forestry: all the trees are cut in one time (progressively or through clear cut), so the area necessarily goes through a scrub state; still, it is a forestry area.

> Clear-cutting happens whether either of us like it or not. The question is
> whether or not that felled area will be replanted (these days it almost
> certainly will be, for carbon capture).
>
> Perhaps a more significant question is does mapping a felled area as
> forestry veer too close to cadastral mapping? Or is it a more
> structured way of adding a note saying "This used to be trees, is
> currently not-trees, but will be trees again"? Land use versus
> land cover.

In such cases, the felled area may perfectly be part of a wider, single forestry area, where clear cut are made on different portions of the area at each pass. A give felled area in it is let alone until the trees have reached a sufficient size, and the once felled area knows a second clear cut, then it is ignored until the trees are big enough, and so on. Overall, the felled area and its surrounding areas, with different tree stands, are still a single forestry area, and individual clear cuts are merely subdivisions of the same forestry area (these subdivisions are not necessarily compartments, though).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210210/b6ef5f58/attachment.htm>