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

Mon Feb 15 20:50:02 UTC 2021

Don't get too discouraged David, don't start rewriting stuff yet, this
is just my perception.  Let us help to improve things.

If we look at the existing tagging scheme for protected_area lets try to
modify this, using existing tags as much as possible. Doing that leads
me to a preliminary proposal as:

New top level boundary value, something like = "natural_reserve" (just a
proposal, feel free to improve), this widens the scope as much as possible.
To loosen up your boundary limitations: "bordertype" (not consistently
used but could be a good addition) = official_gazetted (where this would
mean it is officially gazetted by an authority) / estimated (is just an
estimation but can't be verified to be exact, for whatever reason) /
official_complete (it is gazetted/ + checked and marked correctly in the
field) / official_field (it is marked in the field by an authorised
body) / unofficial _field (it is marked and verified or verifiable in
the field but the markings are applied by a non-officially authorised
body) etc.., others might exist. Existing tags like source, operator,
owner etc.. can be combined to even make things more clear.
This makes it possible to map all kinds of boundaries and makes it clear
how reliable this information is, additional information can be
requested in f.i. fixme. It allows to use all these types of boundaries
with all kinds of nature_reserves.

This would also mean it is possible to deprecate leisure=nature_reserve
! Boundaries can be defined as closed ways, relations or multi-polygons.

Same as we have a protection_type key, create a new reserve_type key to
describe how it is (primarily) managed / or what the purpose is: this
could be forestry / species / wetland / indigenous etc...

All other tagging remain the same. To solve the problem of duplicate use
/ tagging with protected area, we faced the same problem in the existing
scheme.  So what we did was we just draw multiple boundaries (with a
small gap) around each other and tag each of them individually.  This
way we stay objective, it is not up to the mapper to decide what has the
highest priority or to be aware of all legislation. So we could get a
boundary=natural_reserve with reserve_type=forestry and an additional
boundary=protected_area with an IUCN protect_class. Not discriminating
nor prioritised.

Could work for all the examples I've given and the ones already
mentioned in the proposal or in these discussions.

This is just a quick and dirty idea, so any suggestions and objections
are welcome.  Your proposal of how to map is good, works for all cases
and reflects what is already used but not documented.

So far you have absolutely not been discriminating, and I am sure it was
not your intention with this proposal, don't be afraid. I am very happy
someone is bold enough to take up this difficult issue. Keep going !

And because you asked for it: the Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary:
,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187122958 but it has little detail
but the tagging scheme may be interesting.

Greetings, Bert Araali

On 15/02/2021 17:31, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
>
> Thank you for your answer David. It is clear to me and your
> justifications underline it, that it is your intention to present a
> solution in mapping (boundary driven) ...
>
> As I see it all your forestry proposals would fit under a
> protect_class 15, or one of the IUCN classes.  Your proposal says that
> if a forestry area is also a protected_area, an additional
> protect_class should be added, meaning ...
>
> This leaves us with areas which, if you allow me to refer back to
> protect_class 12 / 14 / 15 / 19 that apply to resource-protected
> areas. In stead of defining very specific "forestry" boundaries, what
> is against defining a more general therm, like "natural-resource-area"
> or ...
>
> I see most confusion and discussions arising from the very strict
> boundary requirements ...
>
> 1. Most wetlands and forests are under the jurisdiction of the Uganda
> National Forests Authority (NFA). ...
>
> 2. Because of 1., someone connected and the lack of official maps or
> even a cadastral register ...
>
> Example on OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677824323 and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/711261339#map=16/0.0825/32.4835.
>
> 3. Regarding indigenous use.  If there are people who clearly marked
> their territory it is them. ...
>
> 4. The wetlands. All our wetlands are government land. In some of them
> the government allows extraction of papyrus reeds (for roofs), some
> have designated areas for rice fields, used a sewage filters, drinking
> water extraction and... the swamps, marshes and other wood covered
> areas as "forestry areas", used for wood extraction, charcoal burning
> etc... .
>
> 5. As last example, Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary. This sanctuary is located in
> a forest reserve, concession of NFA.  They breed rhinos and also the
> rhinos maintain the scrub and forest in a natural way, but with
> support of human intervention. ...
>
>
> That is why I think a less restrictive general new boundary value
> would be much more suitable, which allows us to carefully propose a
> general term for the management ...
>
> Greetings, Bert Araali
>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20210215/4982d7c0/attachment.htm>