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

[David Marchal]

Yes, it may be, if the boundaries of the area are actively maintained and materialized, as it states a human will to manage the area: as told in the proposal, the cost and
work of maintaining materialized limits is prohibitive if you don't want to do anything in the area; consequently, if the wooded area limits are materialized differently of standard land lots, it can be considered a forestry area, unless the materialization obviously has a different goal (marking the boundaries of a protected area, for instance).

If the boundaries of such doing-nothing wooded area are not materialized, it will not be possible to tell if it is a forestry (managed) area, or if it is just a wild wooded area (unmanaged). Without traces of management (at least border materialization), the wooded area should be considered unmanaged and not be mapped as a forestry area.

Regards.

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le dimanche, 14. février 2021 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com a écrit :

> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14 Feb 2021, at 10:07, David Marchal via Tagging tagging at openstreetmap.org wrote:
>> 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.
>
> one management strategy in forestry is doing nothing, on purpose, believing in the power of nature. Is this covered with these tags?
> Cheers Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210214/980bdf41/attachment.htm>