Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 22:05 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com>:
> I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested > here a while back. This isn't official or anything, but moving towards > tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important. > I agree the parcels should not get the same tag as the trees, because not all parcels will be covered 100% by trees. I would not use the "landuse"-tag for these. Maybe "boundary" could be an acceptable key. (there are for example around 175 boundary=parcel according to taginfo). Generally, we are not mapping parcels as such at all, neither in built-up areas nor in natural areas. There seems to be a consensus against it (personally, I have different priorities for now, but I would not stop others from mapping parcel boundaries if they can be verified) and in the past, the parcels/propery boundaries that had been imported in the past (somewhere in the US, AFAIR from PD data) have been removed afterwards, I think by the Data Working Group. Questions of verifiability have been raised. In my area, many parcel boundaries (at least effective parcel boundaries) can be surveyed, there are fences, hedges, walls and buildings. For forest parcel boundaries. I could imagine it would be more difficult, or are these fenced off? In some areas I have seen there are place=locality nodes in the forest to store the names of small areas, and while these are not really comparable to parcel boundaries, they may be an alternative method if you are mostly interested in names. Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
