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

[David Marchal]

In such case, the forestry area would me mapped as a dedicated feature, separately of the surrounding protected area. The proposal includes an example tagging for such cases in US National Forests (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations#US_National_Forest); is your example significantly different and in need of a dedicated tagging example?

Regards.

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le samedi, 13. février 2021 16:13, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 11:30, David Marchal via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to all people who reviewed the proposal and made suggestions or asked for clarifications! Do you folks have questions or comments the proposal still does not address?
>
> I spotted the bit about a managed forest may include a protected area and
> how to deal with it. I didn't spot (but could well have missed) how you deal
> with a protected area that includes a managed forest. See Pembrokeshire
> Coast National Park which encompasses natural woodland, managed
> forest, hamlets, villages and towns and for which permission is needed
> to make just about any change that affects the landscape:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165598#map=9/51.8290/-4.8820
>
> --
> Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210213/feca0c61/attachment.htm>