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

David Marchal penegal.fr at protonmail.com
Thu Mar 18 18:13:57 UTC 2021


Le jeudi, 18. mars 2021 17:29, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us> a écrit :

> David - from reading the proposal, I thought it said that natural=wood would not be deprecated.

Indeed, natural=wood is not deprecated, only landuse=forest. Natural=wood is kept to tell "this area is wooded", and the proposed tagging would be used to say "this area is managed through forestry".

> 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 do.

Indeed, if there are no identifiable boundary, the proposed tagging should not be used.

Regards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210318/13d3149c/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list