Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Warin]

On 16/10/19 19:08, David Marchal wrote:

Mateusz,

The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, 
so that sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.


The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see 
how to link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in 
a given forest. With a relation? What kind?


? site relation?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2019, at 10:08, David Marchal  wrote:
> 
> The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to 
> link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a given 
> forest. With a relation? What kind?


no need for a relation, the forest is implicit through the spatial relation / 
the position of the parcels 


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16 Oct 2019, 10:08 by pene...@live.fr:

> Mateusz,
>
> The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, so that 
> sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.
>
Well, every tagging scheme starts from that.
> The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to 
> link these with the forest
>
By mapping them in the same place?

Though, I want to note that mapping this
feature seems questionable to me.

At least in Poland, where general public
is utterly unaware about this.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[David Marchal]

Mateusz,

The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, so that 
sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.

The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to 
link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a given forest. 
With a relation? What kind?

Awaiting your answer,

Regards.


De : Mateusz Konieczny 
Envoyé : mercredi 9 octobre 2019 21:29
À : Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Objet : Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

boundary=forest_compartment?

Is there anything wrong with this tagging
scheme (except that mapping this
kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).

All problems that you mention are
about tagging for renderer.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[David Marchal]

There may be a misunderstanding here: what I mean about forest parcels is a 
piece of forest which is numbered and whose number is displayed on site, with a 
plate or a painted text. Such data can be useful for orientation in a forest 
and, until some years ago, these numbers were displayed on maps, at least in 
France.

Regards.

> Le 10 oct. 2019 à 10:11, Martin Koppenhoefer  a écrit 
> :
> 
> I agree the parcels should not get the same tag as the trees, because not all 
> parcels will be covered 100% by trees. I would not use the "landuse"-tag for 
> these. Maybe "boundary" could be an acceptable key. (there are for example 
> around 175 boundary=parcel according to taginfo). 
> 
> Generally, we are not mapping parcels as such at all, neither in built-up 
> areas nor in natural areas. There seems to be a consensus against it 
> (personally, I have different priorities for now, but I would not stop others 
> from mapping parcel boundaries if they can be verified) and in the past, the 
> parcels/propery boundaries that had been imported in the past (somewhere in 
> the US, AFAIR from PD data) have been removed afterwards, I think by the Data 
> Working Group. Questions of verifiability have been raised. In my area, many 
> parcel boundaries (at least effective parcel boundaries) can be surveyed, 
> there are fences, hedges, walls and buildings. For forest parcel boundaries. 
> I could imagine it would be more difficult, or are these fenced off? 
> 
> In some areas I have seen there are place=locality nodes in the forest to 
> store the names of small areas, and while these are not really comparable to 
> parcel boundaries, they may be an alternative method if you are mostly 
> interested in names.
> 
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 22:05 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com>:

> I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested
> here a while back.  This isn't official or anything, but moving towards
> tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important.
>


I agree the parcels should not get the same tag as the trees, because not
all parcels will be covered 100% by trees. I would not use the
"landuse"-tag for these. Maybe "boundary" could be an acceptable key.
(there are for example around 175 boundary=parcel according to taginfo).

Generally, we are not mapping parcels as such at all, neither in built-up
areas nor in natural areas. There seems to be a consensus against it
(personally, I have different priorities for now, but I would not stop
others from mapping parcel boundaries if they can be verified) and in the
past, the parcels/propery boundaries that had been imported in the past
(somewhere in the US, AFAIR from PD data) have been removed afterwards, I
think by the Data Working Group. Questions of verifiability have been
raised. In my area, many parcel boundaries (at least effective parcel
boundaries) can be surveyed, there are fences, hedges, walls and buildings.
For forest parcel boundaries. I could imagine it would be more difficult,
or are these fenced off?

In some areas I have seen there are place=locality nodes in the forest to
store the names of small areas, and while these are not really comparable
to parcel boundaries, they may be an alternative method if you are mostly
interested in names.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Warin]

Similar problems with other features.

Possibly use a site relation?

Map each individual parcel as a simple way with the reference.

Then place each parcel into a site relation and then the common tags on 
the site relation.


Something like that, look up the site relation on the wiki for details, 
masy only be a proposal.



On 10/10/19 07:04, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested 
here a while back.  This isn't official or anything, but moving 
towards tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:32 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:





9 Oct 2019, 18:11 by pene...@live.fr :

Hello, there.

My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The
boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what
is rendered is tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and
its parcels, which leads to rendering it twice, as you can see
here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides,
such forest are often mistagged for the renderer: as the
contributor wants the parcel number rendered, he puts it in
the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I assume it should
belong.

So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag
forest parcels, their number and them belonging to a forest?

boundary=forest_compartment?

Is there anything wrong with this tagging
scheme (except that mapping this
kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).

All problems that you mention are
about tagging for renderer.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Leif Rasmussen]

I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested here
a while back.  This isn't official or anything, but moving towards tagging
forest parcels differently from the trees seems important.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:32 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 9 Oct 2019, 18:11 by pene...@live.fr:
>
> Hello, there.
>
> My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The
> boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered
> is tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads
> to rendering it twice, as you can see here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides, such forest are
> often mistagged for the renderer: as the contributor wants the parcel
> number rendered, he puts it in the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I
> assume it should belong.
>
> So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag forest
> parcels, their number and them belonging to a forest?
>
> boundary=forest_compartment?
>
> Is there anything wrong with this tagging
> scheme (except that mapping this
> kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).
>
> All problems that you mention are
> about tagging for renderer.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Oct 2019, 18:11 by pene...@live.fr:

> Hello, there.
>
> My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The 
> boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered is 
> tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads to 
> rendering it twice, as you can see here: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides, such forest are often 
> mistagged for the renderer: as the contributor wants the parcel number 
> rendered, he puts it in the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I assume 
> it should belong.
>
> So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag forest parcels, 
> their number and them belonging to a forest?
>
boundary=forest_compartment?

Is there anything wrong with this tagging
scheme (except that mapping this
kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).
All problems that you mention are
about tagging for renderer.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[David Marchal]

Hello, there.

My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The 
boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered is 
tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads to 
rendering it twice, as you can see here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides, such forest are often 
mistagged for the renderer: as the contributor wants the parcel number 
rendered, he puts it in the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I assume it 
should belong.

So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag forest parcels, 
their number and them belonging to a forest?

Awaiting your answers,

Regards.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging