David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> writes: > In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on > their corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order > to ease orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, > restricted access parts of forests, nor about their ownership, only > the publicly-displayed number; I don't think every parcels are > labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that some contributors > already started to do so, like here: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this > question to see if there was a recommended way to do so.
(bad link) I see. Well then that could make sense. >> I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon. >> Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a >> school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that. > The problem is that uch forests can be fragmented, composed of several > disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a > whole, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589 > so, again, I searched for a recommended way to do so, but I only found > this unofficial tagging, mostly consistent for me, but I prefered > asking for opinions on this question before using this tagging scheme. If the name goes with a set of polygons, a relation sounds appropriate. That seems like a general rule, not just forests.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
