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

Adam Franco adamfranco at gmail.com
Fri Jan 1 16:08:02 UTC 2021


(Also added to the talk page
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforest(_compartment)_relations#Naming_suggestion:_.22forestry.22>
)

Given the existing confusion of landuse=forest versus natural=wood, I would
suggest that if this proposal moves forward related to land-management for
sometime-production of forest products, that the tagging use the term
"forestry" rather than "forest". It is far too easy to see "forest" and
think "trees" whereas "forestry" is more unambiguously the actions and
practices surrounding human use of land.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 1:59 AM David Marchal via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hello, there.
>
> I will answer to your questions to the proposal talk page, to centralise
> them.
>
> Regards
> --
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> Le jeudi, 31. décembre 2020 03:28, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> a
> écrit :
>
> > On Dec 30, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > If we are describing "special forestry laws apply to this parcel of
> public land", then we are describing a boundary and the burden is on the
> proposal to show how this differs from and/or impacts
> boundary=protected_area, and how a mapper might interpret and apply that
> difference for various types of forestry lands worldwide
> >
> > +1: There is little or anything that I understand the proposal author's
> intentions to want to "do" (make, enter...) into OSM what cannot already be
> done with a well-tagged multipolygon tagged landuse=forest (perhaps made
> out of untagged or tagged member ways shared with other data structures in
> OSM). (I sometimes half-jokingly call these topologically-complex
> agglomerations of OSM data structures with "shared ways" as "higher math").
> A tag of boundary=forest as the proposal suggests seems wholly superfluous
> and the proposal fails to show me why this tag is needed. The issue of
> members being tagged with role subarea either seems or is confused.
> >
> > The Talk page now links to this thread. I'm not sure where is the better
> place to continue discussion this list or the Talk page. I think the Talk
> page.
> >
> > SteveA
> >
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210101/a535dd75/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list