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

[Peter Elderson]

Managed... You could add the tag by mechanical edit to the whole of Europe. 

Many mappers will not bother themselves with verifying actual, legal or whatever management. You will end up with a mixed situation, where nobody knows what it means, so data users will not bother and treat it all the same. 

Denotation urban/wild/decorative: Does not add much value. In an urban environment, it's urban and/or decorative, elsewhere it's non-urban.

I think natural=<main_landcover> is better than using the landuse key to tag the landcover. 
Natural then has the meaning of: growing or flowing itself, even if arranged or guided by man.

Renderers and other data users still have to deal with natural areas of all sizes enclosed in or overlapping landuses vice versa.

And I still can't imagine all occurrences of landuse=forest being replaced with appropriate new keys and values, ever, unless a major OSM-wide approved automatic edit is organised/performed by the DWG itself. 

In reality I think we are now adding yet another scheme to the ones already there. 

Peter Elderson

> Op 14 feb. 2021 om 10:34 heeft David Marchal via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 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 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210214/5d9da838/attachment.htm>