Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?
David Marchal writes: > In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on > their corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order > to ease orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, > restricted access parts of forests, nor about their ownership, only > the publicly-displayed number; I don't think every parcels are > labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that some contributors > already started to do so, like here: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this > question to see if there was a recommended way to do so. (bad link) I see. Well then that could make sense. >> I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon. >> Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a >> school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that. > The problem is that uch forests can be fragmented, composed of several > disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a > whole, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589 > so, again, I searched for a recommended way to do so, but I only found > this unofficial tagging, mostly consistent for me, but I prefered > asking for opinions on this question before using this tagging scheme. If the name goes with a set of polygons, a relation sounds appropriate. That seems like a general rule, not just forests. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?
> From: g...@ir.bbn.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to > map? > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500 > > > David Marchal writes: > >> 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with >> boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern >> Europe, so geographically limited; others map each parcel with > > (We don't do this in the US, as far as I know; sounds like allotments > for forestry?) > > I am guessing there is some biggish region used for forestry, and then > within it there are specific areas leased/etc. to individuals/companies? > I would tag landuse=forest around the whole thing. > > Then, representing ownership/etc. within is really just like parcels for > houses, which so far OSM has declined to put in the db. In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on their corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order to ease orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, restricted access parts of forests, nor about their ownership, only the publicly-displayed number; I don't think every parcels are labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that some contributors already started to do so, like here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this question to see if there was a recommended way to do so. >> 2) national/municipal forests: numerous forests, here in France, are >> municipal or national ones — the latter being called “forêt domaniale” >> —; many of them are labelled as such on road signs, and they are often >> named after this parameter — like “forêt domaniale de Dabo”, Dabo >> being the neighboring village —, so I think they should be mapped, but >> how? Should I, there again, use a boundary relation and tag it >> boundary=forest? This seems to be the wider-used solution and the most >> consistent one, but boundary=forest isn't in the uses of boundary >> relations documented on the wiki, and I read warnings on >> help.openstreetmap.org and MLs against such undocumented uses, so I >> prefer asking here: should I use this solution? Another? > > I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon. > Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a > school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that. The problem is that such forests can be fragmented, composed of several disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a whole, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589 so, again, I searched for a recommended way to do so, but I only found this unofficial tagging, mostly consistent for me, but I prefered asking for opinions on this question before using this tagging scheme. > We do have boundary=protected_area, but I think that's a mistake, and > we should instead tag the properties on the closed way to denote the > state of the inside. But the notion of a boundary vs a property of the > inside of a polygon is semantically messy to start with. No, I wouldn't use such tagging for this usage, it would be too far of the intended use to do anything more than messing with the data. > One could argue that every area tag goo on a polygon could instead be > boundary=foo. I don't think that's helpful. P.S.: I resend this mail as it seems Outlook messed with its content the first time; sorry for the inconvenience. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?
> From: g...@ir.bbn.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to > map? > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500 > > > David Marchal writes: > >> 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with >> boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern >> Europe, so geographically limited; others map each parcel with > > (We don't do this in the US, as far as I know; sounds like allotments > for forestry?) > > I am guessing there is some biggish region used for forestry, and then > within it there are specific areas leased/etc. to individuals/companies? > I would tag landuse=forest around the whole thing. > > Then, representing ownership/etc. within is really just like parcels for > houses, which so far OSM has declined to put in the db. In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on their corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order to ease orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, restricted access parts of forests, nor about their ownership, only the publicly-displayed number; I don't think every parcels are labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that some contributors already started to do so, like here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this question to see if there was a recommended way to do so. >> 2) national/municipal forests: numerous forests, here in France, are >> municipal or national ones — the latter being called “forêt domaniale” >> —; many of them are labelled as such on road signs, and they are often >> named after this parameter — like “forêt domaniale de Dabo”, Dabo >> being the neighboring village —, so I think they should be mapped, but >> how? Should I, there again, use a boundary relation and tag it >> boundary=forest? This seems to be the wider-used solution and the most >> consistent one, but boundary=forest isn't in the uses of boundary >> relations documented on the wiki, and I read warnings on >> help.openstreetmap.org and MLs against such undocumented uses, so I >> prefer asking here: should I use this solution? Another? > > I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon. > Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a > school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that. The problem is that uch forests can be fragmented, composed of several disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a whole, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589 so, again, I searched for a recommended way to do so, but I only found this unofficial tagging, mostly consistent for me, but I prefered asking for opinions on this question before using this tagging scheme. > We do have boundary=protected_area, but I think that's a mistake, and > we should instead tag the properties on the closed way to denote the > state of the inside. But the notion of a boundary vs a property of the > inside of a polygon is semantically messy to start with. No, I wouldn't use such tagging for this usage, it would be too far of the intended use to do anything more than messing with the data. > One could argue that every area tag goo on a polygon could instead be > boundary=foo. I don't think that's helpful. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?
David Marchal writes: > 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with > boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern > Europe, so geographically limited; others map each parcel with (We don't do this in the US, as far as I know; sounds like allotments for forestry?) I am guessing there is some biggish region used for forestry, and then within it there are specific areas leased/etc. to individuals/companies? I would tag landuse=forest around the whole thing. Then, representing ownership/etc. within is really just like parcels for houses, which so far OSM has declined to put in the db. > 2) national/municipal forests: numerous forests, here in France, are > municipal or national ones — the latter being called “forêt domaniale” > —; many of them are labelled as such on road signs, and they are often > named after this parameter — like “forêt domaniale de Dabo”, Dabo > being the neighboring village —, so I think they should be mapped, but > how? Should I, there again, use a boundary relation and tag it > boundary=forest? This seems to be the wider-used solution and the most > consistent one, but boundary=forest isn't in the uses of boundary > relations documented on the wiki, and I read warnings on > help.openstreetmap.org and MLs against such undocumented uses, so I > prefer asking here: should I use this solution? Another? I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon. Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that. We do have boundary=protected_area, but I think that's a mistake, and we should instead tag the properties on the closed way to denote the state of the inside. But the notion of a boundary vs a property of the inside of a polygon is semantically messy to start with. One could argue that every area tag goo on a polygon could instead be boundary=foo. I don't think that's helpful. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?
Hello, there. I'm wondering how to map 2 things: 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern Europe, so geographically limited; others map each parcel with landuse=forest and then use ref=* to give the parcel number, which have the merit of making rendering easier, even if dividing a big forest in hundreds or thousands of parcels just to map the parcels seems, at first glance, an unnecessary division of the modelling as it is still the same forest, the parcels being essentially a human concern. I would say using the second possibility, but am I right? Is there other possibilities I should think about? 2) national/municipal forests: numerous forests, here in France, are municipal or national ones — the latter being called “forêt domaniale” —; many of them are labelled as such on road signs, and they are often named after this parameter — like “forêt domaniale de Dabo”, Dabo being the neighboring village —, so I think they should be mapped, but how? Should I, there again, use a boundary relation and tag it boundary=forest? This seems to be the wider-used solution and the most consistent one, but boundary=forest isn't in the uses of boundary relations documented on the wiki, and I read warnings on help.openstreetmap.org and MLs against such undocumented uses, so I prefer asking here: should I use this solution? Another? NB: I read several possibilities on these questions, but the sources are conflicting and some are years old, so potentially deprecated, so I would like to know the current usage regarding these problems. Awaiting your answers, Regards. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
