[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations
clifford at snowandsnow.us
Thu Mar 18 16:29:04 UTC 2021
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:52 AM David Marchal via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Deprecating natural=wood or landuse=forest seems necessary in order to
> avoid the proposed tagging simply becoming a seventh approach to forests:
> if I don't deprecate some or all of the current 6, how to avoid this
> proposal merely becoming a seventh? It sounds that it would simply increase
> confusion about this already confused. If a boundary=forestry encloses
> landuse=forest polygons, how should the data user understand the situation?
> What about landuse=forest+managed=no?
David - from reading the proposal, I thought it said that natural=wood
would not be deprecated. The proposal says
"natural=wood No Change This tag continues to be used to tag tree-covered
areas, regardless of whether they are located within forestry areas or
whether they are located within unmanaged wooded areas. This proposal
maintains this tag's "de facto" status in order to remain neutral on the
question of whether to use landcover=trees as a replacement of or in
addition to natural=wood to describe wooded areas."
> Finally, I'm aware that some people will not be happy about the proposal
> and could oppose it; that may be for many reasons they can argue about, or
> simply because they resist change. It's human, most of us resist change at
> various degrees; I include myself in that, as I at times heavily resist to
> changes I can't cope with. That being said, there is nothing I can do about
> it. All I can do is addressing arguments as best as I can, and then launch
> the vote and hope that the matter is serious enough for people to think
> twice about their resistance to change before rejecting it.
> In the section, * Is this a forestry area? *It says "Wooded area used for
logging (one can see stubs) but without verifiable boundaries" That would
seem to apply to most of the forested areas in the PNW region of the US and
I'm guessing British Columbia and Alaska. So are you saying that if the
boundary of the forested area isn't identifiable on the ground they
shouldn't be mapped? If so, it will make my job easy. there is nothing to
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging