[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations
pelderson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 17 17:56:43 UTC 2021
I still don't see why this proposal requires deprecating landuse=forest. I
think that is asking for no-votes.
"This tag has been used for forestry areas as well as unmanaged wooded
areas. As a result, data consumers have interpreted this tag to mean a
wooded area with no specific forestry meaning implied. As a result, this
tag is effectively a synonym for natural
is true enough I think, and will remain true for a while, independent of
the outcome of this proposal. I think the proposal should stick to the
boundary portion and not portion. As far as landuse=forest is concerned,
state a preference if you must (and for the record, I share that
preference) but don't jeopardise the proposal by unnecessarily including
the deprecation of a tag with so many millions of uses.
Op wo 17 mrt. 2021 om 14:50 schreef David Marchal via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:
> Hello, there.
> After an initial failed vote, this proposal was heavily reviewed and
> rewrited. Contested parts were removed or improved to better explain the
> proposal reasoning and its connections with current tagging practices
> (particularly the "Why not a landuse?" explaination). Comments have been
> addressed as much as possible without denaturing the proposal, which is now
> ready to return to RFC:
> The talk page has been expurged of comments related to the first proposal,
> apart from the first vote comments, which are relevant to check the current
> Awaiting your reviews,
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging