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

[David Marchal]

The question one should ask himself here is "Is the forestry area also considered a protected area under IUCN categories by local authorities?" If so, use boundary=forestry+protect_class=x; if not, use only boundary=forestry. If there is no forestry in the protected area, then don't use boundary=forestry and keep with boundary=protected_area.
Beware: forestry is about forest management, not necessarily about wood extraction as commonly understood. Forestry is a mean, not a goal; it may perfectly be used solely for environmental protection, for instance to maintain the biotope of protected species. This is why I included an exception in the proposal: if the forestry applied is verifiably used for an environmental protection and only for that, don't use boundary=forestry.

I explained in the proposal that "US National Forests and French public forests are managed following similar goals (wood production has the same level of importance as environmental protection and access by the general public; the area is considered multifunctional), but US ones are typically considered protected under IUCN Category V, whereas French ones are under the legal status of all French public forests, which does not consider them as protected areas despite offering the same level of [legal] protection as US National Forests." In both, forestry is applied and wood extraction is one of its concurrent goals, but the USA consider the area as protected, whereas France consider this standard management.

Regards.

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le samedi, 13. février 2021 20:46, brad <bradhaack at fastmail.com> a écrit :

> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210214/b803715e/attachment.htm>