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

[David Marchal]

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le dimanche, 14. février 2021 14:23, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :

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

I left it out of the proposal because, in my mind, it's general tagging: if a feature is in an area with special rules, but is not subject to these rules, it is an enclave in it and should be tagged accordingly. Is it OK to you? Do you think it should be specified in the proposal?

> 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?

Yes, as it is also forestry works. It is basic (not archaic, though most foresters in France would think that) forestry practice, but is still forestry. I mentioned it in the proposal, by the way.

Regards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210214/31ffa298/attachment.htm>