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

[David Marchal]

I added a tagging example explaining that in the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations#Forestry_area_in_a_UK_National_Park

Regards.

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le samedi, 13. février 2021 20:24, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 16:24, David Marchal <penegal.fr at protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are such forestry areas subject to limitations due to the surrounding national park, or are they enclaves where national park laws/rules don't apply?
>
> They are subject to national park rules. The rules may differ for managed
> forest from rules for other parts of the park (I don't know) but there are
> additional rules that do not apply to managed forests outside the national
> park.
>
>> In each case, you should map the forestry area as it is, in a separate entity. Then, in the first case, nothing else have to be done: the reasoning of the proposal about overlapping protected and forestry areas (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations#Included_protected_areas) applies, and the forestry area and the forestry works done in it are understood as subject to national park limitations. In the second case, the forestry area should also be mapped as an enclave of the national park, as, in this case, it will de facto be an enclave. Does this sound consistent to you?
>
> Reasonably so. It was clarification along those lines that I was seeking,
> rather than a blanket "it's inside a protected area so this applies." OTOH,
> I see Kevin has replied (but haven't read his reply yet) so there may be
> other things to consider.
>
> --
> Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210214/b0d558aa/attachment-0001.htm>