There may be a misunderstanding here: what I mean about forest parcels is a piece of forest which is numbered and whose number is displayed on site, with a plate or a painted text. Such data can be useful for orientation in a forest and, until some years ago, these numbers were displayed on maps, at least in France.
Regards. > Le 10 oct. 2019 à 10:11, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit > : > > 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 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
