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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 3:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 13 Feb 2021, at 19:11, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > While the designation of purpose - land use - does follow cadastre, land
> ownership is also less than informative.
>
> while actual landuse and designated landuse / zoning will often be the
> same, it is not necessarily the case and I believe it is important to point
> out that landuse in OpenStreetMap is about the actual use of land, not
> about the designation.
>
> The kind of “forest” areas you are describing, which are designated as
> forests but can contain villages, scree, tundra, lakes etc., are in my view
> something that should be covered by a kind of boundary (like protected
> area), and are not to be confused with forests (ecosystem, tree covered).
> If you’re in a clearing/glade you are not in a forest (depending on the
> scale you look at it, and legally, for the kind of forest areas you
> describe, you might be). We should be able to make these distinctions and
> provide the information about all these entities (actual cover, and
> eventually actual use and legal designation, as far as it can be verified
>

Well, looking at the subject line of the thread, it appears that 'a kind of
boundary' is exactly what it proposes. Have we lost the point entirely?

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210214/9816aece/attachment-0001.htm>