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

[David Marchal]

Dear mappers and taggers,

Additional concerns have been addressed, though not all. Given the impact of the proposal in case of approval, I assume it will never address all concerns, corner cases and possible uses, and that I should not expect unanimity about it. Still, I prefer to ask: do you folks consider the proposal ready for voting, or should I keep addressing concerns for now?

Awaiting your answers,

Regards.

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le samedi, 13. février 2021 12:24, David Marchal <penegal.fr at protonmail.com> a écrit :

> Dear mappers and taggers,
>
> The boundary=forestry(_compartment) proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations) has recently known significant changes: it now
>
> - deprecates landuse=forest, as it replaces it and removes its confusion between forestry areas and wooded areas;
> - designates natural=wood for modelling wooded areas, managed or not;
> - deprecates landcover=trees, which is a duplicate of natural=wood;
> - includes more explainations and examples about the problems with current tagging and how the new tagging proposes to handle them.
>
> Thanks to all people who reviewed the proposal and made suggestions or asked for clarifications! Do you folks have questions or comments the proposal still does not address?
>
> Awaiting your answers,
>
> Regards.
>
> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210215/fe6d79e7/attachment-0001.htm>