Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 27 ott 2016, alle ore 01:26, Dave Swarthout 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> I agree with Kevin when he says "In any case, I think we both agree that 
> hunting regulations are complex and varied enough that the specific details 
> almost certainly don't belong in OSM, particularly in places where they 
> change from one season to the next according to conservation needs."


+1
what might be taggable are general restrictions (hunting always forbidden) or 
specific hunting resorts with a name.


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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

This is an interesting thread and although I've not done much tagging of
protected areas, there are millions of acres of such areas in Alaska, most
of which do not yet have the level of comprehensive tagging being discussed
here. I came across this article from a major Alaskan newspaper and while
it has nothing to do with tagging it does illustrate the very complex rules
Alaska uses to govern the taking of moose.

https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventure/2016/10/18/legal-moose-illegal-moose-difficult-dilemma-even-for-veteran-alaska-hunters

I agree with Kevin when he says "In any case, I think we both agree that
hunting regulations are complex and varied enough that the specific details
almost certainly don't belong in OSM, particularly in places where they
change from one season to the next according to conservation needs."

Alaskan hunting and fishing regulations are extremely complicated. One
needs to carry a copy of them along on a road trip because the regulations
are different for each "game unit" in the state. And if you screw up and
get caught, the fines are serious.

Cheers,
Dave

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> So, Germany has hunting regulations even more complex and restrictive than
> those in the US (which are already complex). But in both countries, hunting
> is largely practiced as an aid to conservation - thinning the herd, which
> would otherwise undergo horribly destructive boom-and-bust cycles for want
> of large predators.
>
> I rather thought that European hunting was limited to specific hunting
> preserves. You guys have a lot denser population. I live within about an
> hour's drive of a mostly-forested park (a public-private partnership) that
> is larger than Slovenia, only slightly smaller than Belgium - about 2.5
> million hectares. It's hardly surprising that it's managed differently. The
> park has a permanent human population of about 130,000 and is located
> in the "densely populated" US Northeast. About half of it enjoys quite
> strict protection (IUCN classes 1b and 2). The largest contiguous area of
> Class 1b protection is about 80,000 hectares (and took me three-and-a-half
> days to hike across - the terrain is brutal).
>
> We have 'wild' boar here too - the descendants of escaped or intentionally
> released domestic swine. They're unbelievably destructive. Paradoxically,
> hunting them is banned entirely. The problem is that pigs travel in groups
> called 'sounders' - and shooting one pig will usually disperse the group,
> which will reform into two or more groups elsewhere. They breed fast enough
> that if 70-75% of a sounder isn't taken at once, hunting simply multiplies
> the problem. The current strategy is to get the pigs accustomed to traps,
> slowly baiting them in, and attempt to eradicate an entire sounder. (It
> also eliminates the incentive to breed them unlawfully for sport.)
>
> In any case, I think we both agree that hunting regulations are complex
> and varied enough that the specific details almost certainly don't belong
> in OSM, particularly in places where they change from one season to the
> next according to conservation needs.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 19:39, Kevin Kenny <
>> kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> >
>> > In my part of the world, game animals are abundant enough, and public
>> forest lands are also abundant enough, that most hunters either hunt on
>> their own property or that of a club, or simply hunt on public land.
>>
>>
>> AFAIK in Germany you will have to lease a hunting "parcel"/area in order
>> to go hunting. You'll need a license in any case, both for hunting and for
>> having a firearm (hunting with traps is generally forbidden, not sure for
>> archery but I think it's forbidden as hunting method as well) (and another
>> 2 licenses, one for buying/making ammunition, another one for carrying the
>> weapon). The self-perception of hunters is typically that of someone
>> keeping the wildlife in the area in equilibrium, i.e. killing those game
>> that are "too much", mostly deer and wild boars, ill foxes etc., and they
>> will also feed "their animals" if deemed necessary, eg during tough winters.
>>
>> This said, there are numerous further restrictions, time based, according
>> to the kind of game, species...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openst

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

So, Germany has hunting regulations even more complex and restrictive than
those in the US (which are already complex). But in both countries, hunting
is largely practiced as an aid to conservation - thinning the herd, which
would otherwise undergo horribly destructive boom-and-bust cycles for want
of large predators.

I rather thought that European hunting was limited to specific hunting
preserves. You guys have a lot denser population. I live within about an
hour's drive of a mostly-forested park (a public-private partnership) that
is larger than Slovenia, only slightly smaller than Belgium - about 2.5
million hectares. It's hardly surprising that it's managed differently. The
park has a permanent human population of about 130,000 and is located
in the "densely populated" US Northeast. About half of it enjoys quite
strict protection (IUCN classes 1b and 2). The largest contiguous area of
Class 1b protection is about 80,000 hectares (and took me three-and-a-half
days to hike across - the terrain is brutal).

We have 'wild' boar here too - the descendants of escaped or intentionally
released domestic swine. They're unbelievably destructive. Paradoxically,
hunting them is banned entirely. The problem is that pigs travel in groups
called 'sounders' - and shooting one pig will usually disperse the group,
which will reform into two or more groups elsewhere. They breed fast enough
that if 70-75% of a sounder isn't taken at once, hunting simply multiplies
the problem. The current strategy is to get the pigs accustomed to traps,
slowly baiting them in, and attempt to eradicate an entire sounder. (It
also eliminates the incentive to breed them unlawfully for sport.)

In any case, I think we both agree that hunting regulations are complex and
varied enough that the specific details almost certainly don't belong in
OSM, particularly in places where they change from one season to the next
according to conservation needs.



On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 19:39, Kevin Kenny <
> kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > In my part of the world, game animals are abundant enough, and public
> forest lands are also abundant enough, that most hunters either hunt on
> their own property or that of a club, or simply hunt on public land.
>
>
> AFAIK in Germany you will have to lease a hunting "parcel"/area in order
> to go hunting. You'll need a license in any case, both for hunting and for
> having a firearm (hunting with traps is generally forbidden, not sure for
> archery but I think it's forbidden as hunting method as well) (and another
> 2 licenses, one for buying/making ammunition, another one for carrying the
> weapon). The self-perception of hunters is typically that of someone
> keeping the wildlife in the area in equilibrium, i.e. killing those game
> that are "too much", mostly deer and wild boars, ill foxes etc., and they
> will also feed "their animals" if deemed necessary, eg during tough winters.
>
> This said, there are numerous further restrictions, time based, according
> to the kind of game, species...
>
>
> 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] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 19:39, Kevin Kenny 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> In my part of the world, game animals are abundant enough, and public forest 
> lands are also abundant enough, that most hunters either hunt on their own 
> property or that of a club, or simply hunt on public land.


AFAIK in Germany you will have to lease a hunting "parcel"/area in order to go 
hunting. You'll need a license in any case, both for hunting and for having a 
firearm (hunting with traps is generally forbidden, not sure for archery but I 
think it's forbidden as hunting method as well) (and another 2 licenses, one 
for buying/making ammunition, another one for carrying the weapon). The 
self-perception of hunters is typically that of someone keeping the wildlife in 
the area in equilibrium, i.e. killing those game that are "too much", mostly 
deer and wild boars, ill foxes etc., and they will also feed "their animals" if 
deemed necessary, eg during tough winters.

This said, there are numerous further restrictions, time based, according to 
the kind of game, species...


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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

Forgive me if this is a duplicate. I was typing from my phone, and used the
wrong 'From:' address, causing the message to drop into the moderator queue.


We don't generally try to encode all the details of local law. I'm
perfectly happy with saying that licensing, seasons, hours, permissible
species, sex, age, size, bag limits, weapon, and so on are out of the
project scope. I don't think OSM should be in the business of duplicating
information whose authoritative source is elsewhere and is arbitrarily
complex.

Nothing I've tagged with 'hunting=*' is dedicated as a hunting area: the
closest thing are 'wildlife management areas.'  I've been tagging with
hunting=yes, hunting=no, hunting=permit (special permit required above and
beyond the usual licensure), and in a handful of cases
hunting=archery_only, simply to indicate whether an area is open to hunters
at all. In most cases I've cross referenced the Wildlife Management Unit
number  (which,
as I said, is reasonably stable), and I depend on a hunter's ability to
comply with other regulations. To attempt to encode the game regulations
 along with local firearms law and
all the other complexity would be madness. I don't propose even to map the
regions  (and
the separate set for migratory birds
) in which
different sets of regulations apply. Note that Wildlife Management Units
are administrative boundaries that don't follow county and township lines
or any other particular structure. I wouldn't have any idea how to tag
them, but I don't think that OSM is a good home for them in any case.

In my part of the world, game animals are abundant enough, and public
forest lands are also abundant enough, that most hunters either hunt on
their own property or that of a club, or simply hunt on public land. I may
therefore be a North American totally misunderstanding the European
situation. Here, most of the popular game species are nuisance wildlife
when they aren't being made into stew.


On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> I wonder whether a simple hunting=yes is sufficient.
> In Belgium you can only hunt for a limited period of the year and even
> within that period there are sub-periods for different animals.
> Hunting in Flanders is often on fields and meadows, but you have to
> stay at least 150m (AFAIK) away from the houses. That means the area
> for which hunting=yes holds, is often a subarea of a larger landuse.
> Furthermore you need a permit, for which you have to pass an exam.
>
> If one would create a map with all hunting=yes areas, would a
> non-Belgian know all those limitations ? Do we have to map them
> explicitly ?
>
> As for the nature protection aspect: in some areas they just release
> animals that were raised in captivity a short period before the
> hunting season starts. Not much protection going on there.
>
> m
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Lauri Kytömaa  wrote:
> > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> if the forest and the hunting area are known under different names,
> under which tag would you put which name?
> >
> > Two points for the whole discussion thread:
> >
> > 1) Forest areas (with the tag, that is) can be subdivided for various
> > attributes, like deciduous/coniferous/last_full_chop=* etc. Users
> > could debate for months when it is appropriate or isn't, but they are
> > already.
> >
> > 2) Areas where hunting is allowed (to some) are not usually directly
> > tied to the edges of the landuse=forest ways, even if the forest
> > polygon hasn't been subdivided. Hunting (as in the general meaning
> > "somebody shoots animals") isn't limited to forests.
> >
> >
> > --
> > alv
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Hunting area tagging

[Marc Gemis]

I wonder whether a simple hunting=yes is sufficient.
In Belgium you can only hunt for a limited period of the year and even
within that period there are sub-periods for different animals.
Hunting in Flanders is often on fields and meadows, but you have to
stay at least 150m (AFAIK) away from the houses. That means the area
for which hunting=yes holds, is often a subarea of a larger landuse.
Furthermore you need a permit, for which you have to pass an exam.

If one would create a map with all hunting=yes areas, would a
non-Belgian know all those limitations ? Do we have to map them
explicitly ?

As for the nature protection aspect: in some areas they just release
animals that were raised in captivity a short period before the
hunting season starts. Not much protection going on there.

m

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Lauri Kytömaa  wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> if the forest and the hunting area are known under different names, under 
>> which tag would you put which name?
>
> Two points for the whole discussion thread:
>
> 1) Forest areas (with the tag, that is) can be subdivided for various
> attributes, like deciduous/coniferous/last_full_chop=* etc. Users
> could debate for months when it is appropriate or isn't, but they are
> already.
>
> 2) Areas where hunting is allowed (to some) are not usually directly
> tied to the edges of the landuse=forest ways, even if the forest
> polygon hasn't been subdivided. Hunting (as in the general meaning
> "somebody shoots animals") isn't limited to forests.
>
>
> --
> alv
>
> ___
> 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] Hunting area tagging

[Lauri Kytömaa]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> if the forest and the hunting area are known under different names, under 
> which tag would you put which name?

Two points for the whole discussion thread:

1) Forest areas (with the tag, that is) can be subdivided for various
attributes, like deciduous/coniferous/last_full_chop=* etc. Users
could debate for months when it is appropriate or isn't, but they are
already.

2) Areas where hunting is allowed (to some) are not usually directly
tied to the edges of the landuse=forest ways, even if the forest
polygon hasn't been subdivided. Hunting (as in the general meaning
"somebody shoots animals") isn't limited to forests.


-- 
alv

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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-10-24 23:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

>
> Use the same method as for bridges ..
>
> the 'primary' feature name
>
> name=*
>
> the 'other' feature
>
> hunting:name=*
>
> forest:name=*
>
> These details are trivial.



I do indeed propose the same method as for bridges, where I had pushed for
the introduction of man_made=bridge as a proper object that represents the
bridge and that can get properties like "name", "ref" etc. rather than
adding indirect tags like "bridge_name" on a road for the bridge over which
the road goes.

Yes, you can do all kind of indirect mapping ("on the left sidewalk of this
road, 20 m after this point, there is a bollard with a width of 40 cm,
leaving 1,20 m free space left and 0,80 m right of the bollard in the
direction of the highway way" can all be tagged indirectly on a highway way
for a road, but it doesn't make a lot of sense IMHO, it only would lead to
data consumers very likely dropping the information, it would lead to
mappers having difficulties understanding complex situations, it would lead
to the highway way being split into many pieces because of properties of
its sidewalk, etc.).

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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Yves  wrote:

> Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what about
> defining hunting = as a permission tag, and invent a new polygon type
> dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other polygon is
> suitable to add this tag to?
>

I think that's a fine idea, and I think (rereading
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area) that
'boundary=protected_area protect_class=14 protection_object=hunting' would
be eminently appropriate if there's no other polygon type available. I see
that 'protect_class=14' is documented to mean '*species:* no fishing,
protected for fishery, *protected for hunting*, plants, ... ' (italics
mine), which sounds just like what's intended.

I used 'hunting=*' with the New York City conservation lands import, along
with 'trapping=*' and 'fishing=*'.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304831 is an example of the full set
of tags.

I didn't come up with a formal proposal, because then I'd have to think
harder about what the default values ought to be; Sorry, I'm lazy! I
mentioned the tags in the import proposal, and nobody complained.

The issue of defaults is a tough one.For instance, all State Forests in New
York allow hunting, with the exception that the ones in Regions 1-3 require
specific authorization to hunt there. All allow fishing wherever there's a
suitable waterbody. When I did the New York State lands, I didn't trouble
with those tags. Perhaps I should have, since it's not immediately obvious
what particular locale-dependent assumptions ought to be made. Food for
thought.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 25-Oct-16 03:57 AM, Yves wrote:
Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what 
about defining hunting = as a permission tag, and invent a new polygon 
type dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other 
polygon is suitable to add this tag to?

Yves


Nice idea. Thank you Yves for thinking of the basics.



Le 24 octobre 2016 13:29:21 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a 
écrit :


On 24-Oct-16 07:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>:

And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then 
landuse=hunting" ..
I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.

Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is 
tagged.

If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest 
with a secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.



who is declaring the "primary use"?

The mapper - as usual.

How would you judge this?

Same as I would judge anything else - from the available evidence.

landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area
where trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the
landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides
the natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the
unclear term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was
meant "primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...


I would use the following combination;

landuse=hunting
landcover=trees
natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend
to dual tag with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is
'widely accepted', just not by some)

If the area were primarily used for the production of tees and/or
their products with hunting as another use I would use the
following combination;

landuse=forest
hunting=yes (or permissive etc)

---
To me landuse=forest is only for areas where trees are grown for
the production of products from those trees e.g. lumber, wood
pulp, oils, rubber, maple syrup




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

-- Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma 
brièveté. 


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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 25-Oct-16 12:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Il giorno 24 ott 2016, alle ore 13:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I would use the following combination;

landuse=hunting
landcover=trees
natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to dual tag 
with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely accepted', just 
not by some)



if the forest and the hunting area are known under different names, under which 
tag would you put which name?


Use the same method as for bridges ..

the 'primary' feature name

name=*

the 'other' feature

hunting:name=*

forest:name=*

These details are trivial.


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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Yves]

Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what about 
defining hunting = as a permission tag,  and invent a new polygon type 
dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other polygon is suitable 
to add this tag to? 
Yves 


Le 24 octobre 2016 13:29:21 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>On 24-Oct-16 07:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> 2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> >:
>>
>> And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
>> mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then
>landuse=hunting" ..
>> I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is
>hunting.
>>
>> Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use
>is tagged.
>>
>> If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged
>landuse=forest with a secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put
>forward.
>> If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be
>used.
>>
>>
>>
>> who is declaring the "primary use"?
>The mapper - as usual.
>> How would you judge this?
>Same as I would judge anything else - from the available evidence.
>> landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where 
>> trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the 
>> landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides the 
>> natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the unclear 
>> term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was meant 
>> "primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...
>
>I would use the following combination;
>
>landuse=hunting
>landcover=trees
>natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to
>dual 
>tag with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely 
>accepted', just not by some)
>
>If the area were primarily used for the production of tees and/or their
>
>products with hunting as another use I would use the following
>combination;
>
>landuse=forest
>hunting=yes (or permissive etc)
>
>---
>To me landuse=forest is only for areas where trees are grown for the 
>production of products from those trees e.g. lumber, wood pulp, oils, 
>rubber, maple syrup
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Chris Hill]

On 24/10/16 09:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" ..
I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.

Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is tagged.

If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest with a 
secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.



who is declaring the "primary use"? How would you judge this? 
landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where 
trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the 
landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides the 
natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the unclear 
term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was meant 
"primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...


The whole mix of forest and hunting discussion is amusing. The English 
word forest meant an uncultivated area set aside for hunting, usually 
with some trees on it. The hunting would often be on horseback. The word 
forest has become used as an area full of trees.


Hunting in the UK still often conjures up an image of people on 
horseback with a pack of hounds chasing foxes across the (cultivated) 
countryside rather than in a forest, which is now banned. Hunts (the 
name for the collection of people, horses and dogs) that used to chase 
foxes now chase artificial scents and only kill a fox when no one is 
watching. Legal hunting for sport in the UK is largely restricted to a 
few people who pay to stalk and shoot deer (known as stalking, never as 
hunting), a few people who pay to have game birds driven towards them so 
they can shoot them (know as shooting, never as hunting) and people who 
shoot rabbits and pigeons for the pot with a shotgun.


This is completely different from the idea of hunting elsewhere in the 
world. Such diversity means tagging needs to be carefully applied. If 
someone tagged the area that a hunt ranges (the horses and dogs type) in 
England as hunting=yes and someone else used that to indicate they could 
take down local deer with a rifle or a crossbow that would not be good.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 24 ott 2016, alle ore 13:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha 
> scritto:

> I would use the following combination;
> 
> landuse=hunting
> landcover=trees
> natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to dual tag 
> with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely accepted', just 
> not by some)



if the forest and the hunting area are known under different names, under which 
tag would you put which name? 

cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 24-Oct-16 07:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" ..
I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.

Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is tagged.

If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest with a 
secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.



who is declaring the "primary use"?

The mapper - as usual.

How would you judge this?

Same as I would judge anything else - from the available evidence.
landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where 
trees grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the 
landcover=trees property which I myself try to push and besides the 
natural=wood tag which is disputed in meaning because of the unclear 
term "natural"), i.e. if you decided that a forest was meant 
"primarily for hunting", you couldn't map it as a forest...


I would use the following combination;

landuse=hunting
landcover=trees
natural=wood (I too don't 'like' this and for that reason I tend to dual 
tag with the landcover=trees tag. However natural=wood is 'widely 
accepted', just not by some)


If the area were primarily used for the production of tees and/or their 
products with hunting as another use I would use the following combination;


landuse=forest
hunting=yes (or permissive etc)

---
To me landuse=forest is only for areas where trees are grown for the 
production of products from those trees e.g. lumber, wood pulp, oils, 
rubber, maple syrup



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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
> mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" ..
> I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.
>
> Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is tagged.
>
> If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest with a 
> secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
> If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.
>
>

who is declaring the "primary use"? How would you judge this?
landuse=forest is the only widely accepted way to tag an area where trees
grow (besides mapping single trees, and besides the landcover=trees
property which I myself try to push and besides the natural=wood tag which
is disputed in meaning because of the unclear term "natural"), i.e. if you
decided that a forest was meant "primarily for hunting", you couldn't map
it as a forest...

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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 23-Oct-16 05:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Il giorno 22 ott 2016, alle ore 11:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting would be 
better than using amenity.
It is a use of the land. And any use of the land is an amenity to someone, so 
it is more specific than the amenity key.


I would avoid 'landuse' as this would obviously conflict with other landuses 
like forest. Hunting will rarely be an exclusive landuse.



? I responded to your post

On 22-Oct-16 08:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


In case of a property, you could use "hunting=*", in case of a
dedicated area it could be something like amenity=hunting_area /
hunting_resort or similar.


And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and
mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" ..
I think that is fairly clear ... dedicated, primary use is hunting.

Most 'landuse' have more than one function, but the primary use is tagged.

If the primary use is forest then it could be tagged landuse=forest with a 
secondary tag of hunting=* as you have put forward.
If the primary use is hunting then landuse=hunting should be used.

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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 22 ott 2016, alle ore 11:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha 
> scritto:
> 
> For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting would be 
> better than using amenity.
> It is a use of the land. And any use of the land is an amenity to someone, so 
> it is more specific than the amenity key.


I would avoid 'landuse' as this would obviously conflict with other landuses 
like forest. Hunting will rarely be an exclusive landuse.

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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Warin]

On 22-Oct-16 08:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
While it is true that hunting might be allowed or not in nature 
reserves, and that according to the situation it might be necessary or 
beneficial for the nature if some hunting with the aim of population 
control is done, leisure=nature_reserve still is not the answer to the 
question how to tag a hunting area (IMHO). You simply can't tell by 
this tag if hunting is allowed or not.


Here some areas with the same key/value combinations allow hunting while 
others do not. Without a specific tag hunting cannot be determined here.


I'd rather like to see a specific tag for hunting if hunting is what 
you want to map.


The question could be: is this about a property of any area (hunting 
allowed/forbidden/possible/encouraged/possible for a fee/whatever), or 
is it an area specifically dedicated to hunting (main tag).



Why restrict the answer ..only to have to answer the other case later?

In case of a property, you could use "hunting=*", in case of a 
dedicated area it could be something like amenity=hunting_area / 
hunting_resort or similar.


For a already tagged feature or one that fits an existing case then 
hunting=* would be 'good'.


For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting would 
be better than using amenity.
It is a use of the land. And any use of the land is an amenity to 
someone, so it is more specific than the amenity key.



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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

While it is true that hunting might be allowed or not in nature reserves,
and that according to the situation it might be necessary or beneficial for
the nature if some hunting with the aim of population control is done,
leisure=nature_reserve still is not the answer to the question how to tag a
hunting area (IMHO). You simply can't tell by this tag if hunting is
allowed or not.

I'd rather like to see a specific tag for hunting if hunting is what you
want to map.

The question could be: is this about a property of any area (hunting
allowed/forbidden/possible/encouraged/possible for a fee/whatever), or is
it an area specifically dedicated to hunting (main tag).

In case of a property, you could use "hunting=*", in case of a dedicated
area it could be something like amenity=hunting_area / hunting_resort or
similar.

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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Yves]

I definitely think it's a matter of permission and opening hours,  the polygon 
where this permission apply is secondary,  could it be an admin boundary or 
reserve of some kind. 
Let the case where no boundary exists yet in OSM,  then map it. 
Yves 

Le 21 octobre 2016 15:45:26 GMT+02:00, Kevin Kenny 
 a écrit :
> That's rather a simplistic view. Hunting reserves exist to protect the
>land from development so that there will be places where it is possible
>to
>hunt and game available to harvest. The important distinction isn't the
>one
>between 'hunting reserve' and 'wilderness'; it's the one between
>'reserve
>land' and 'suburbia.'
>
>In most of the conservation lands in my part of the world, hunting is
>permitted, even encouraged, because it is necessary to thin the herds.
>Since humanity drove the wolf and cougar into extinction in my part of
>the
>world a century and a half ago (and so far will not allow the wolf to
>be
>reintroduced, even in strictly protected wilderness), hunting is
>necessary
>to avoid ecological collapse from overpopulation of the larger game
>species, notably the white-tailed deer, the black bear, and local
>nonmigratory populations of geese. Most of the hunters that I know
>understand very well the value of conservation, and few would say that
>hunting reserves exist for the primary purpose of supporting hunting.
>
>The state not only owns lands for this purpose, but also encourages
>this
>style of management on the part of private landowners. My brother gets
>substantial tax breaks on the farm he owns because my family has
>allowed it
>to return to woodland. (It hasn't been farmed since the Dust Bowl
>years.)
>In return, he's required both to refrain from farming it and to refrain
>from subdividing or developing. He is permitted the occasional timber
>harvest (the plan for which must be approved by a forester) and to use
>the
>land for hunting (he's not much of a hunter, but leases the hunting
>rights
>to a club), fishing, and recreation (a snowmobile/ATV trail crosses his
>acreage). Given that the state is compensating him to conserve his land
>and
>practice sustainable forestry, how is his private preserve not
>conservation
>land? Does the fact that people pay the club to hunt on the club's
>leaseholds (an area much larger than my brother's farm) change the
>nature
>of my brother's conservation easement?
>
>His deal with the government is typical. A lot of people get something
>out
>of it. New York City gets better water quality in the Watsonville
>reservoir. A few hunters, fishermen, and snowmobilists get a place to
>recreate. The National Park Service gets protection of the Delaware
>River
>viewshed. The poor soil that remains is stabilized against further
>erosion
>and gradually rebuilt by the natural processes that have been going on
>since it was denuded in the last ice age. Brook trout and shad find a
>place
>to spawn. Several threatened bird species have been sighted on his
>property. Most important to him, he can afford the taxes to continue
>living
>in the place. Without the conservation easement, he'd have been forced
>to
>sell to a developer and move back to the city years ago.
>
>Nature reserves are managed for many purposes, and enjoy greater and
>lesser
>levels of protection. New York is fortunate enough to have them in
>abundance. Some are enormous and strictly protected (e.g., High Peaks
>Wilderness). Some are tiny (as small as a few city blocks of wetland in
>New
>York City). Some belong to Federal, State and local governments. Some
>are
>in private hands - the International Paper tract in Arietta township is
>the
>largest. (It allows public access for recreation anywhere that active
>logging is not taking place, and it takes a forester's eye to
>distinguish
>it from the adjacent Jessup River Wild Forest.) Some belong to
>conservancies (and for complicated legal reasons, sometimes it is
>convenient for New York to pay conservancies to acquire and manage
>land).
>Some allow only the most passive of activities (access by foot, ski,
>and
>canoe, in terrain that only fit and experienced outdoor recreationists
>will
>tackle). Some restrict only development and allow motorized recreation,
>timber harvest, and low-density habitation.
>
>All are popularly known as 'nature reserves' of one sort or another. I
>daresay that around here, few people can make the distinction, for
>instance, between Wilderness Area, Wild Forest, State Forest, State
>Wildlife Management Area, and even State Park. To the tourist, they
>look
>identical - they all have the same style of brown-and-gold signs, they
>are
>all open to the public, they are all mostly forested (because that's
>the
>natural state of most land in the local ecosystem), they all belong to
>the
>state and are policed by the rangers,   The fact that they are
>managed
>for different primary objectives and fall under different regulatory
>schemes is secondary - most people deal with the regulation by
>following
>what the

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Craig Wallace  wrote:
>
>
> But that is different from an area is managed primarily to benefit
> hunting. eg if they are keeping deer numbers artificially high (feeding
> over winter, or breeding), just to allow as many as possible to be shot.
> Despite the damage this causes to vegetation and other wildlife.


Nobody around here raises deer. We get far more deer than the ecosystem
will support as it is - they show up everywhere as nuisance wildlife. Game
farms such as you describe may exist, but none of the hunting reserves that
I personally have tagged are among them. The closest thing to that model
that I have tagged is that the state operates fish hatcheries and a
pheasant breeding farm for the purpose of restocking over-harvested
species. (The current model that the state has for the pheasant is that
they will release captive-bred pheasant into the wildlife management areas,
to protect more vulnerable and less tasty species such as grouse.)

My apologies if I'm duplicating messages here. I'm having a problem with
some intermediate agent in the mail chain rewriting my 'from' address so
that I'm getting messages held for moderator approval. I'm also having
problems with the touchpad on my laptop sometimes going crazy and
spontaneously registering taps and I think that at least one half-composed
message may have inadvertently been sent.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

 That's rather a simplistic view. Hunting reserves exist to protect the
land from development so that there will be places where it is possible to
hunt and game available to harvest. The important distinction isn't the one
between 'hunting reserve' and 'wilderness'; it's the one between 'reserve
land' and 'suburbia.'

In most of the conservation lands in my part of the world, hunting is
permitted, even encouraged, because it is necessary to thin the herds.
Since humanity drove the wolf and cougar into extinction in my part of the
world a century and a half ago (and so far will not allow the wolf to be
reintroduced, even in strictly protected wilderness), hunting is necessary
to avoid ecological collapse from overpopulation of the larger game
species, notably the white-tailed deer, the black bear, and local
nonmigratory populations of geese. Most of the hunters that I know
understand very well the value of conservation, and few would say that
hunting reserves exist for the primary purpose of supporting hunting.

The state not only owns lands for this purpose, but also encourages this
style of management on the part of private landowners. My brother gets
substantial tax breaks on the farm he owns because my family has allowed it
to return to woodland. (It hasn't been farmed since the Dust Bowl years.)
In return, he's required both to refrain from farming it and to refrain
from subdividing or developing. He is permitted the occasional timber
harvest (the plan for which must be approved by a forester) and to use the
land for hunting (he's not much of a hunter, but leases the hunting rights
to a club), fishing, and recreation (a snowmobile/ATV trail crosses his
acreage). Given that the state is compensating him to conserve his land and
practice sustainable forestry, how is his private preserve not conservation
land? Does the fact that people pay the club to hunt on the club's
leaseholds (an area much larger than my brother's farm) change the nature
of my brother's conservation easement?

His deal with the government is typical. A lot of people get something out
of it. New York City gets better water quality in the Watsonville
reservoir. A few hunters, fishermen, and snowmobilists get a place to
recreate. The National Park Service gets protection of the Delaware River
viewshed. The poor soil that remains is stabilized against further erosion
and gradually rebuilt by the natural processes that have been going on
since it was denuded in the last ice age. Brook trout and shad find a place
to spawn. Several threatened bird species have been sighted on his
property. Most important to him, he can afford the taxes to continue living
in the place. Without the conservation easement, he'd have been forced to
sell to a developer and move back to the city years ago.

Nature reserves are managed for many purposes, and enjoy greater and lesser
levels of protection. New York is fortunate enough to have them in
abundance. Some are enormous and strictly protected (e.g., High Peaks
Wilderness). Some are tiny (as small as a few city blocks of wetland in New
York City). Some belong to Federal, State and local governments. Some are
in private hands - the International Paper tract in Arietta township is the
largest. (It allows public access for recreation anywhere that active
logging is not taking place, and it takes a forester's eye to distinguish
it from the adjacent Jessup River Wild Forest.) Some belong to
conservancies (and for complicated legal reasons, sometimes it is
convenient for New York to pay conservancies to acquire and manage land).
Some allow only the most passive of activities (access by foot, ski, and
canoe, in terrain that only fit and experienced outdoor recreationists will
tackle). Some restrict only development and allow motorized recreation,
timber harvest, and low-density habitation.

All are popularly known as 'nature reserves' of one sort or another. I
daresay that around here, few people can make the distinction, for
instance, between Wilderness Area, Wild Forest, State Forest, State
Wildlife Management Area, and even State Park. To the tourist, they look
identical - they all have the same style of brown-and-gold signs, they are
all open to the public, they are all mostly forested (because that's the
natural state of most land in the local ecosystem), they all belong to the
state and are policed by the rangers,   The fact that they are managed
for different primary objectives and fall under different regulatory
schemes is secondary - most people deal with the regulation by following
what the signage proclaims. (State Wildlife Management Area, by the way, is
a newer title for what used to be called State Game Reserves. They are very
much hunting preserves.)

I see 'leisure=nature_reserve" as an interim measure to get something on
the map when its full legalities are not understood, and I also continue to
tag it because otherwise a great many of our public recreation areas would
not appear on the rendered

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Craig Wallace]

On 2016-10-21 14:07, Greg Troxel wrote:


Craig Wallace  writes:


I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife,
not to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the
purposes of conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it
is not a nature reserve.


I think you are off here.  Nature is complicated, and "preserving
nature" is too.  There's a long tradition of wildlife management areas
where hunting is allowed (subject to seasons and limits, set by state
wildlife biologists).  In these, while deer and geese are taken, the
area remains natural, and the vegetation is somewhat protected from
overbrowsing by deer.  And, killing individual deer is not bad for the
species.  Around me, and I'm sure around Kevin, as soon as there are
areas that aren't paved over, there are too many deer compared to
historical norms.  Around me, "Wildlife Management Areas" don't feel
different from "Conservation Areas", except that there are a few weeks
you should be wearing orange or avoiding them.

I am near a federal Wildlife Refuge -- and deer hunting is allowed, in
order to keep the population somewhat under control and protect the
vegetation and other species.


Yes, a nature reserve may allow some hunting, to control numbers of 
particular species.


But that is different from an area is managed primarily to benefit 
hunting. eg if they are keeping deer numbers artificially high (feeding 
over winter, or breeding), just to allow as many as possible to be shot. 
Despite the damage this causes to vegetation and other wildlife.


And these hunting areas often have misleading names. eg they claim to be 
a 'reserve', when its more like a farm.



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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Greg Troxel]

Craig Wallace  writes:

> I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife,
> not to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the
> purposes of conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it
> is not a nature reserve.

I think you are off here.  Nature is complicated, and "preserving
nature" is too.  There's a long tradition of wildlife management areas
where hunting is allowed (subject to seasons and limits, set by state
wildlife biologists).  In these, while deer and geese are taken, the
area remains natural, and the vegetation is somewhat protected from
overbrowsing by deer.  And, killing individual deer is not bad for the
species.  Around me, and I'm sure around Kevin, as soon as there are
areas that aren't paved over, there are too many deer compared to
historical norms.  Around me, "Wildlife Management Areas" don't feel
different from "Conservation Areas", except that there are a few weeks
you should be wearing orange or avoiding them.

I am near a federal Wildlife Refuge -- and deer hunting is allowed, in
order to keep the population somewhat under control and protect the
vegetation and other species.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Craig Wallace]

On 2016-10-20 16:33, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Since nobody else has stepped forward to answer this, as far as I can
tell, let me take a whack at it:

I think that the best tagging for a hunting reserve that the current
renderer knows about is 'leisure=nature_reserve". That's how the state
wildlife management areas in New York, the State Game Lands in
Pennsylvania, and so on are tagged. 'Nature reserves' encompass a lot of
things.


I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife, not 
to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the purposes of 
conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it is not a nature 
reserve.
Yes, it is rendered on the map, but this an example of tagging 
(incorrectly) for the renderer.




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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

@Kevin,

Your reply is, as always, well thought out and well stated. I haven't had
the opportunity to tag any of these so far but I've stashed a copy of this
thread in my Evernotes folder.

Keep up the good work!

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> Since nobody else has stepped forward to answer this, as far as I can
> tell, let me take a whack at it:
>
> I think that the best tagging for a hunting reserve that the current
> renderer knows about is 'leisure=nature_reserve". That's how the state
> wildlife management areas in New York, the State Game Lands in
> Pennsylvania, and so on are tagged. 'Nature reserves' encompass a lot of
> things.
>
> If the chief object of the reserve is something other than hunting, then
> another landuse may be appropriate. On many of the state reserves in my
> area, the chief object is timber production and hunting is a secondary use.
> In that case, 'landuse=forest' would be a better choice.
>
> In addition, moving forward, there should be appropriate protected area
> tagging. If memory serves, what I used for New York's wildlife management
> areas was 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=4
> protection_title="Wildlife Management Area" '. In a few cases, such as a
> state game farm dedicated to the ring-necked pheasant, I used combinations
> like 'protect_class=14 protection_object=species species:name="Phaisianus
> colchicus" '. Similarly, for the New York City recreation areas that allow
> hunting, I used the primary purpose of the land: 'protect_class=12
> protection_object=water', and added 'access=yes hunting=yes' (among other
> tags).
>
> These schemes appear to have held up even in a very complex land
> management regime. Querying some of the features visible on
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.9339&lon=-74.
> 1889#map=13/41.9842/-74.2488 would give a good idea of the range of
> things that can be represented, including private preserves, developed
> 'front country' campgrounds, public hunting reserves, and on up to
> out-and-out class-1 wilderness. (I can say from personal experience that
> the mountains west of the Ashokan Reservoir are quite wild indeed, from
> having climbed the 1000-m peaks there. Unless one is a very, very fast
> hiker and prepared to start and finish in darkness, those nine peaks
> require a multi-day off-trail expedition to complete.)
>
> A good example of a private preserve is found at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.4263&lon=-74.
> 0612#map=13/42.5379/-74.1473 There, the Partridge Run properties are
> state-owned (under two different land management schemes, which is
> unavoidably confusing!), while the Huyck Preserve belongs to a private
> non-profit conservancy.
>
> There's no reason that a private game reserve can't be tagged as a
> 'protected area' - not all protections arise from government fiat. Add
> 'access=private' if you have to pay to get in, and 'site_ownership=private'
> if that's relevant.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands and
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_
> Recreation_Areas were the two import proposals that I sponsored that used
> the protected_area tagging scheme. Both were reasonably non-controversial.
> (There is no such thing as an entirely non-controversial import proposal -
> but the objections raised to the import had nothing to do with the choice
> of tagging.)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Alejandro S. 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody!
>>
>> Is there a tag for hunting areas? I mean, big areas, sometimes fenced and
>> usually you have to pay to hunt there.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>   Alejandro Suárez
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Yves]

Hunting areas rights and laws are of GREAT variety in the world,  even within a 
particular country. 
I don't see no problem in tagging them,  but I guess the mapping schem should 
let a lot of room,  not only for refinement,  but also for completely different 
definition. 
Maybe starting with hunting=yes/no/see note is a common enough ground. 
Yves 

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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

Since nobody else has stepped forward to answer this, as far as I can tell,
let me take a whack at it:

I think that the best tagging for a hunting reserve that the current
renderer knows about is 'leisure=nature_reserve". That's how the state
wildlife management areas in New York, the State Game Lands in
Pennsylvania, and so on are tagged. 'Nature reserves' encompass a lot of
things.

If the chief object of the reserve is something other than hunting, then
another landuse may be appropriate. On many of the state reserves in my
area, the chief object is timber production and hunting is a secondary use.
In that case, 'landuse=forest' would be a better choice.

In addition, moving forward, there should be appropriate protected area
tagging. If memory serves, what I used for New York's wildlife management
areas was 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=4
protection_title="Wildlife Management Area" '. In a few cases, such as a
state game farm dedicated to the ring-necked pheasant, I used combinations
like 'protect_class=14 protection_object=species species:name="Phaisianus
colchicus" '. Similarly, for the New York City recreation areas that allow
hunting, I used the primary purpose of the land: 'protect_class=12
protection_object=water', and added 'access=yes hunting=yes' (among other
tags).

These schemes appear to have held up even in a very complex land management
regime. Querying some of the features visible on
http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.9339&lon=-74.1889#map=13/41.9842/-74.2488
would give a good idea of the range of things that can be represented,
including private preserves, developed 'front country' campgrounds, public
hunting reserves, and on up to out-and-out class-1 wilderness. (I can say
from personal experience that the mountains west of the Ashokan Reservoir
are quite wild indeed, from having climbed the 1000-m peaks there. Unless
one is a very, very fast hiker and prepared to start and finish in
darkness, those nine peaks require a multi-day off-trail expedition to
complete.)

A good example of a private preserve is found at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.4263&lon=-74.0612#map=13/42.5379/-74.1473
There, the Partridge Run properties are state-owned (under two different
land management schemes, which is unavoidably confusing!), while the Huyck
Preserve belongs to a private non-profit conservancy.

There's no reason that a private game reserve can't be tagged as a
'protected area' - not all protections arise from government fiat. Add
'access=private' if you have to pay to get in, and 'site_ownership=private'
if that's relevant.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_Recreation_Areas
were the two import proposals that I sponsored that used the protected_area
tagging scheme. Both were reasonably non-controversial. (There is no such
thing as an entirely non-controversial import proposal - but the objections
raised to the import had nothing to do with the choice of tagging.)



On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Alejandro S. 
wrote:

> Hi everybody!
>
> Is there a tag for hunting areas? I mean, big areas, sometimes fenced and
> usually you have to pay to hunt there.
>
> Kind regards,
>   Alejandro Suárez
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Alejandro S.]

Hi everybody!

Is there a tag for hunting areas? I mean, big areas, sometimes fenced and
usually you have to pay to hunt there.

Kind regards,
  Alejandro Suárez
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging