[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations (Was "Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations")
brad
bradhaack at fastmail.com
Sat Feb 13 19:46:26 UTC 2021
I'm not clear on how boundary=forestry & boundary=protected_area,
protect_class=6 are distinguished. In the wiki you say that some
protected_areas should be forestry because the primary goal is
forestry. That seems very subjective. In the wiki you say that US
Nat Forest are protected_area, but French forests aren't, even though
they have the same protections? I see a lot of confusion and overlap
here.
I think there needs to be a sharper division.
On 2/13/21 4:24 AM, David Marchal via Tagging wrote:
> Dear mappers and taggers,
>
> The boundary=forestry(_compartment) proposal
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations)
> has recently known significant changes: it now
>
> * deprecates landuse=forest, as it replaces it and removes its
> confusion between forestry areas and wooded areas;
> * designates natural=wood for modelling wooded areas, managed or not;
> * deprecates landcover=trees, which is a duplicate of natural=wood;
> * includes more explainations and examples about the problems with
> current tagging and how the new tagging proposes to handle them.
>
> 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?
>
> Awaiting your answers,
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210213/b6781d19/attachment.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list