> Nev, great initiative. I’ve been contemplating how the new boundary=forest > could be used in Vic and S NSW. Rather than view it a tag to use in addition > to land use=forest, I saw it as a useful replacement.
> By replacing landuse=forest with boundary = forest, we could generate State > Forest (SF) tenure boundaries, similar to conservation reserves, and remove > all ambiguity about whether landuse=forest infers a vegetation type > (forest/wood), a landuse (forestry) or a tenure (State Forest). (It means all > 3 things to different people). We could then accurately map SF tenures > independent of vegetation type and (perhaps?) the finer-scale mapping of > actual landuse. > We could also more accurately map vegetation types in SFs, whereas atm, it’s > a complete mess to map scrub, grassland, etc in SFs, especially where they > cross SF boundaries. Also, it clearly acknowledges that only a small part of > many SFs is actually used (and can be used) for timber production. > It seems to me we have a fantastic opportunity to greatly reduce the > horrendous vagaries that are implicit in landuse=forest across Aus SFs if we > use boundary=forest to apply to tenure, and natural=wood, scrub, etc to apply > to the vegetation type, within SFs. In reality, we have little way of mapping > which parts of many SFs are available for logging unless we import far more > detailed datasets from gov agencies. > I look forward to other thoughts on the matter. Cheers Ian _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
