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

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 15:15:03 UTC 2021

In my limited experience (3rd proposal in voting), both methods are useful
(mailing list and wiki talk).  I find that the mailing list is especially
valuable when wider problem-solving is needed, while the wiki is
particularly well-suited for hammering out details at a more working
level.  I don't think one is a substitute for the other.  Discouraging
participation on either channel only serves to reduce the feedback you
might get as a proposal author.

For this proposed forestry boundary tagging, there are legitimate
contentious issues here with the intersection between
boundary=protected_area and boundary=forestry that I really think deserve
wide input.  It's still not clear to me whether or how this new tagging
would apply to US National Forests - is it the whole boundary or just
internal forestry areas, and if just internal, I'm not sure how one would
determine (for this specific case in the US) which internal area would be
considered a forestry area vice just a wilderness area that happens to be
covered with trees.  From what I've seen of these examples, it sounds like
in many cases "state forests" in the US are not forestry areas but just
regular protected wilderness, though it gets fuzzy since forestry is
apparently about "more than just timber production".

I assume that other countries have similar areas to US National Forests
with differing definitions that may or may not apply under these
definitions and I think it's important that folks more familiar with how
these types of areas are set up in various countries weigh in on how well
these definitions apply in various places.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:53 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 17:29, David Marchal via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> Reviews and comments are to be made on the discussion page of the
>> proposal,
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations
>> to keep them in a single place.
> Good luck with that.
> What has happened with similar requests in the past is that those who
> find the mailing list a more convenient way to discuss things continue
> to use the mailing list rather than the wiki.  Then, when it comes to the
> vote, they vote against the proposal because their concerns were not
> addressed.
> I understand why you might wish to make matters more convenient for
> a single person (yourself) but that convenience comes at the expense
> of the convenience of those you with to persuade to your point of
> view.
> As I said, good luck with that.
> --
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210128/9f62fa60/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list