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

Clifford Snow clifford at snowandsnow.us
Thu Jan 28 17:40:18 UTC 2021

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:16 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>

> 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.

The wiki makes for better threaded conversations, but unless you are
experienced at editing the wiki, it's not as easy as just replying to an

> 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".

The one area I found questionable is the compartments section of the
proposal. Logging activity is nearby where I live. I see full logging
trucks regularly. There is even a large wood mill just a short distance
away. But I have never seen a compartment marker in all my driving and
hiking in the area.. What is visible is clear cut areas. There is a tag
man_made=clearcut. I don't particularly like the use of man_made but do
feel that clearcut should be included in the proposal.

> 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.

I've asked a friend that is a GIS professional working for a large forestry
company to look at the proposal from the perspective of a mapper in the US.
I know he is quite busy but hopes to give me some feedback in the next few

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210128/52d59a9d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list