If a specific protect_class seems seems too uncertain I guess protection_title= State Forest would be sufficient. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protection_title
Nevw > On 26 Jan 2019, at 5:44 pm, nwastra <nwas...@gmail.com> 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_area > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_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 ), > 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 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. > > Nevw > > > > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
