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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:14 AM David Marchal via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Regarding landcover=trees: should the proposal be accepted, natural=wood
> would essentialy have the same meaning than landcover=trees. It seemed
> consequently logical to deprecate one of the two, and landcover=trees,
> being far less used and rendered, seems a good candidate. Not mentioning
> it, or letting consciously this duplicate in the wild without deprecating
> it would decrease the consistency of the proposal, in my opinion.
>

As I understand it, natural=wood and landcover=trees already have the same
meaning regardless of whether this proposal is accepted.  I agree that it
makes sense to "solve" forests in one... excuse the pun... fell swoop.  So
far, the objections to doing this seems to be in the form of "people will
object" rather than "I object"!

So I would say, continue the direction you're taking, and if there is
meaningful opposition, it is no problem to stop, reset, and move forward
with a more narrow proposal and then follow it up with a second proposal to
finish the job.  There is no shame if we multiple votes (either because a
vote needed to be restarted after a change, or broken down to separate
proposals), especially for such a complex topic.

I would like to see the full proposal attempted (add forest boundaries,
deprecate landuse=forest and landcover=trees) because I think there is
actually wide community support for this idea if put forward to a vote.
Now would be an excellent time to step forward and state your objection if
*you personally* are only in favor of 1-2 of these pieces but not all three
so that David can make an informed decision as to how to move forward on
this proposal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210213/ea3675d1/attachment.htm>