On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 10:54 PM Bradley White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are > > not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases). > > > IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two > boundaries would be: > 1. 'boundary=protected_area' around fee simple NF land ownership, > since this describes the actual protected areas of land > 2. 'boundary=administrative' (with a not-yet-existing 'admin_level') > around declared NF boundaries, since this is an administrative > boundary for the NF and doesn't necessarily show what land is actually > managed by the NF. The above is a good and workable solution in my opinion.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
