[talk-au] State Forest boundaries

[Warin]

On 26/01/19 18:44, nwastra wrote:
>
> Hi
> the gazetted State Forest boundaries are not rendered currently on the 
> default map on the OpenStreetMap (OpenStreetMap Carto).
> landuse=forest is considered as forestry use and natural=wood are 
> natural wooded areas not subject to forestry but both are rendered the 
> same.
>
> When the State Forest is mapped in isolation the boundary of the 
> landuse=forest defines the area but as soon as an area of trees is 
> mapped extending beyond the State Forest boundary, as is expected, 
> then the State Forest boundary is not depicted.
>
> Tag:boundary=protected_areahttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area>
>
> After looking at the options listed on wiki link above, along with the 
> Nature-protected-areas like national parks (and all the other CAPAD 
> types 
> <http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/abbreviations> ), 
> I feel that boundary=protected_area is reasonable tag for the gazetted 
> *State Forest boundaries* with further classification as 
> *Resources-protected-areas*.
> I feel the the State Forests are boundaries where tree resources are 
> protected or reserved for future forestry operations and need to be 
> defined by their boundaries on the osm.
> There are strict rules covering these areas and we should be readily 
> able to see them on the map.
> State Reserve and Timber Reserve in CAPAD don’t capture the State Forests.
>
> On the Resources-protected-areas 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area#Resources-protected-areas> for 
> particular countries I note that the United States has listed *State 
> Forest* under protect_class 15, this being described at the 
> Resources-protected-area section as …
> 15*location condition*: floodwater retention area, protection forest, 
> grazing land, …
>
> I propose that we also add ’State Forest’ to protect_class 15 on the 
> Resources-protected-area table.
>
> With the most recent changes toOpenStreetMap Carto this would enable 
> rendering of the State Forest boundaries in the same manner as all the 
> other protected area boundaries.
>
> Another partial solution would be to render landuse=forest differently 
> than the landcover tags but that is unlikely from my reading of the 
> tagging and rendering groups and if two separately gazetted forestry 
> boundaries shared a border the boundary between the two would not be 
> depicted on the map anyway.
>

Personally I would remove any 'state forest' (or any other forestry) 
areas from any tagged natural=tree areas. There are at lest some that 
have been included in those tagged areas.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190126/d7f2c5ba/attachment.html>