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.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au