On 17 July 2018 at 08:46, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the area cannot be used for logging. >
No, I agree that it can't be used for logging at the moment, & seeing that the Club has been there for 40+ years, it is extremely unlikely to be returned to a logging area in the future! :-) (Although there is nothing stopping the Forestry Commission from cancelling their lease & replanting the area :-() There is a saw mill in the Tumut NSW Australia area (Batlow IIRC?) operated > by the Forestry Commission, designated as a state forest .. yet it is > correctly tagged as land use industrial in OSM. I would think the same > applies to the golf course > Do you know if it's mapped as a multipolygon, as Paul suggested? > it could be out of date, what ever the case what is on the ground should > override any other source of information. > It could well be, however one of the notes for changes to the SF boundary from earlier this year says "using Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries - gazetted to 27 April 2018.", so it would appear that the official boundary is still correct. Wouldn't that mean that if I just changed the SF boundary now by pushing it back behind the Club, the next time somebody does a Protected Areas of Qld update, it would move the boundary back to the official line, returning this area to SF? > > Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped in > OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use. > We simply cannot map them. > Guess we better not go there!
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
