[Tagging] type=bounday

[David Marchal]

Multipolygons were considered but boundary was preferred because such areas are often subject to a separate set of laws, akin to a protected area, but less strict, so it was more akin to a boundaried area than to a simple multipolygon.

That being said, as you said, this changes almost nothing for mapping.

Regards.

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.

------- Original Message -------
Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> schrieb am Freitag, 25. März 2022 um 15:09:

> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am Fr., 25. März 2022 um 07:15 Uhr schrieb David Marchal via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> As the proposal author, I would say that type=boundary being mandatory also for simple polygons is a remnant from a previous similar proposal, which only allowed relations. The approved tagging scheme allows plain polygons, for which a type=* tag is not supposed to be mandatory, so I would say the wiki should be clarified to state that type=boundary is only mandatory when the boundary=forest entity is a relation, and not for simple polygons.
>>>
>>> I'll amend the wiki accordingly.
>>
>> +1, it should say that "type" should not be put on simple polygons, because it is a tag reserved for relations.
>
> I'd have mildly preferred `type=multipolygon`, but didn't speak up because `boundary` and `multipolygon` are nearly synonymous nowadays, and I can live with either.
>
> --
>
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220325/bb249a18/attachment.htm>