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

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 at 08:57, David Marchal via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 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
>

Thank you.  But... (with me, there's always a "but")

You make the distinction that in a UK national park it wouldn't be an
enclave.  But I can't find anything in the proposal that defines how
enclaves and exclaves are to be treated, so I don't know what
difference that makes.  I know what an enclave is in the general
sense, but not what difference it makes in how it gets tagged.

BTW, when I mentioned all the things that are in that national
park, I forgot about the one that consumes the largest non-tree
area: farmland.  There's a lot of farmland.  I should have
mentioned that so it was easier for you to grasp how it
differed from most of your examples.  The place has
some areas of managed trees, some areas of not-
managed trees, and a lot of not-trees.

Another question popped into my head.  Does coppicing count as
forestry in your proposal?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210214/e899a7e3/attachment.htm>