Proposed features/boundary=forestry( compartment) relations

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations
Status: Proposals without post-vote cleanup
Proposed by: Penegal
Tagging: boundary=forestry
Applies to: relation
Definition: Tagging scheme for areas used for forestry
Drafted on: 2020-12-27
RFC start: 2021-03-17
Vote start: 2021-04-06
Vote end: 2021-04-20

Proposal

Overhead imagery of a forestry compartment
A forestry compartment within a forestry area. The cut lines are visual indications of forestry activity

A forestry area is a mostly-wooded land with defined boundaries, which has at least one of the following characteristics:

  • The area is used for production of lumber, firewood, bark, cork, sap, and related forest products like leaves, mushrooms, wild berries or herbs for human consumption and use
  • Management policies are employed to alter the number, species or shape of trees with activities such as planting, thinning, felling or pruning trees; mulching; enrichment; protection against damage from animals; or coppicing.

A forestry compartment is a numbered sub-division within a forestry area, physically materialized with visible, typically cleared, boundaries.

Proposed are that:

  • New tagging is adopted for forestry areas and forestry compartments, and competing tagging schemes are deprecated, as described in the table below.
  • Definitions for forestry areas, compartments, and associated terminology are adopted.
  • Tagging techniques for modeling forestry boundaries and land cover are adopted as a community recommendation to mappers.

Proposed tagging changes

Summary of Tagging Changes
Tag Action Description
boundary=forestry Approve Describes the boundary of a managed, mostly wooded, forestry area. The forestry area may include multiple disjoint parts and may encompass non-wooded areas such as glades, screes, or ponds as long as the collective area is administered and managed as a whole through forestry. This tag is combined at a minimum with name=* and operator=*.
boundary=forestry_compartment Approve A forestry area may be divided into forestry compartments. A forestry compartment is a referenced area wholly within a boundary=forestry, which has visible boundaries, typically evidenced by the removal of trees along the boundary line or the presence of physical markers. The tag compartment_ref=* is used to indicate the compartment's unique identifier.
landuse=forest Deprecate This tag has been used for forestry areas as well as unmanaged wooded areas. As a result, data consumers have interpreted this tag to mean a wooded area with no specific forestry meaning implied. As a result, this tag is effectively a synonym for natural=wood. Therefore, it is proposed to formally deprecate this tag in favor of a gradual replacement with other tagging.
boundary=forest
boundary=forest_compartment
Deprecate These tags are synonyms of boundary=forestry and boundary=forestry_compartment for tagging forestry boundaries. The term "forest" in English refers to any wooded area (though it can imply forestry, it doesn't require it), as opposed to "forestry" which means "the science or practice of planting, managing, and caring for forests". In order to firmly disambiguate forestry tagging from ordinary wooded areas, this proposal adopts all "actual forestry" variants of other, competing tags.
natural=wood No Change This tag continues to be used to tag tree-covered areas, regardless of whether they are located within forestry areas or whether they are located within unmanaged wooded areas. This proposal maintains this tag's "de facto" status in order to remain neutral on the question of whether to use landcover=trees as a replacement of or in addition to natural=wood to describe wooded areas.
landcover=trees No Change This proposal takes no position on the usage of landcover=trees. For simplicity and readability sake, this proposal will describe the tag natural=wood throughout this proposal to refer to wooded areas as it is the more popular tag.


Rationale

  1. There are currently 6 different ways to tag forests and forestry areas. Not only is this situation confusing to mappers, it also prevents data consumers from having a reliable mechanism to differentiate forestry areas from unmanaged wooded areas.
  2. The tags boundary=forestry and boundary=forestry_compartment are already in use with approximately 6,000 usages. In addition, there are 8,000 usages of synonyms boundary=forest and boundary=forest_compartment. Thus, with 14,000 existing usages, this tagging scheme is already in active use. This proposal establishes a community consensus for standardizing the usage of these tags, consistently with OSM practices and norms.
  3. The word forest means "a large tract of land covered with trees" and does not by itself indicate that there is forestry activity happening on the land: though "forest" can imply forestry, it doesn't require it. By adopting terminology that uses the word forestry, and deprecating tagging that uses the term forest, it will be clear to mappers that the tagging is intended to apply to forestry areas and not necessarily any forest. Even the naming of these areas is confusing, as forestry areas are commonly called "forest" or "wood", without differentiating forestry areas from unmanaged woodlands. Thus these concepts (wooded lands, aka. "physical forests", and forestry areas, aka. "logical forests") should be treated separately, with different tagging.
  4. Existing objects tagged landuse=forest may be forestry areas, or they may simply tree-covered areas. Deprecation of this tag provides an indication to mappers to that a feature has not been examined to determine whether it is a forestry area or simply wooded.


Identifying forestry areas

Though forestry areas are mainly wooded, this is not always the case. Forestry areas may contain screes, ponds, scrublands, or grasslands which are not covered by trees, and are consequently not tagged as wooded areas. Such non-wooded areas are still part of the forestry area, as they may be:

  • managed by the manager of the surrounding forest;
  • under reforestation;
  • lands with a distinct, wood-related ecosystem (glades for instance, which essentially exist because they are in a wooded area, else they would be called grasslands);
  • legally considered part of the surrounding forestry area, i.e. they are subject to the same subset of laws, rights and obligations ( Régime forestier in France, for instance).

Some forestry areas may even be predominantly scrubland (natural=scrub), which often forms after a clearcut followed by natural regeneration (i.e. no plantation). In this case, the land will not be again tree covered until the seedlings grow, which can take decades.

Boundaries

A wild wooded area can be considered "managed" when its limits are clearly materialized, for instance with paint, boundary markers, or cutlines. Marking boundaries, even simplistically, is the very first act for forest management:

  • It tells neighbours that here starts an area potentially used for wood extraction (with related dangers and property rights);
  • It allows the forest workers to know where their work starts and stops.

Consequently, materialized boundaries are enough to mark a wooded area as "managed", as a "forestry area".

The markings used to delineate forestry areas are more significant than the standard markings used for common land lot boundaries. Standard land ownership boundaries in wooded areas typically lack signs, marks or paint highlighting the difference between its boundaries, but local laws and customs may prescribe carved marks or other methods. If an area is only delimited with land lot boundary stones, without any signs, marks or paint highlighting the difference between its boundaries and standard land lot boundaries, the area should not be modelled as a forestry area.

Compartments

A forestry compartment designates a single piece of a given forestry area, which is identified by reference, often a number, which is unique inside the forestry area. Forestry compartments are not a land lot nor a cadastral parcel. Though boundaries of forestry area/compartment and land lots frequently overlap, a given forestry area or compartment may be composed of multiple land lots, and a single land lot may be divided in multiple forestry areas/compartments. Each managed compartment should be modeled as a single boundary=forestry_compartment, without consideration for any land lot boundaries which may encompass or be contained within the compartment.

Forestry compartment should be mapped if present, but will not be present in all forestry areas. Some forestry areas are too small to justify the creation and maintenance of compartments, or may be managed without compartments.

In some countries, such as Poland, forestry compartments may be defined in public GIS but not materialized on the ground. Since these "compartments" do not have verifiable and distinguishable existence and limits on the ground, they are effectively cadastral information and should not be mapped.

Forestry activities

Any of the following activities are conducted in forestry areas:

  • Production of lumber, firewood, bark, cork, sap, and related forest products like leaves, mushrooms, wild berries or herbs for human consumption and uses
  • Alteration of number, species or shape of trees by humans by any mean, including the following:
    • Selection of trees for biodiversity, phytopathologies, wood quality, maintaining the wooded state of the area or regulating the respective proportions of present species
    • Planted, felling, thinning, or pruning trees
    • Mulching, enrichment, protection against damages from animals
    • Coppicing

Such operations may not take place on the whole area. Some places within forestry areas may not need such operations for decades or may be voluntarily excluded of them. If these places are collectively managed as part and parcel of an overall forestry managed area, they should be treated as one unified area for the purpose of tagging.

Forestry areas vs protected areas

Forestry areas and protected areas may overlap or coincide. If they overlap, they can be modelled separately, with a boundary=protected_area relation and a boundary=forestry relation. For a forestry area which is also a protected area (most likely, IUCN Category VI), these should be tagged boundary=forestry + protect_class=*, which is consistent with the tagging scheme for IUCN Category II national parks (tagged boundary=national_park + protect_class=2). It is appropriate to also include other relevant tags commonly used with protected areas, such as related_law=*, access tagging, or leisure=nature_reserve if applicable, to reflect the dual status of the area.

Areas named "Forest"

The fact that an area has the word "forest" in the name does not necessarily mean that the area is used for forestry. For example, US National and State Forests are generally multi-purpose protected areas which may or may not include forestry areas. Named natural forests, such as Germany's  Black Forest, are simply large wooded areas, whose name does not imply them being forestry areas.

Tagging

Forestry areas should be mapped as follows:

  • The overall forestry area should be mapped as an enclosing polygon. Do not add land cover tagging (such as natural=*) to this boundary or "cut out" minor non-wooded areas such as ponds or screes that may be present.
  • A forestry area may include smaller forestry areas, themselves either divided or not in compartments, so a boundary=forestry relation may enclose smaller boundary=forestry relations
  • Natural features (such as natural=wood, natural=water, natural=scree, etc.) should be separately tagged with their own polygons delimiting actual areas where these features are present. Woodland-specific tagging such as leaf_type=*, leaf_cycle=*, etc., should be tagged on natural=wood features, particularly in forestry areas where the tree type is homogenous.


Example modelling, with two different wooded areas (tagged natural=wood) and the overall forestry boundary relation (tagged boundary=forestry); the pond is considered part of the forestry area and therefore included in it.


The overall forestry area boundary (tagged boundary=forestry) can be tagged as follows:

Suggested tagging for boundary=forestry
Key Value Discussion
type=* boundary Mandatory
boundary=* forestry Mandatory
ref=* The forest ref Optional. Such reference is probably country-based, so one should use a subtag, like ref:FR:ONF or ref:US:USFS, whenever applicable; the choice of this subtag for a given country is up to the local OSM community.
name=* The forest name Recommended. If applicable, the forestry area can be named with this tag, and, maybe, its subtags, like name=Forêt de Fontainebleau or name:de=Wald von Fontainebleau.
operator=* The forest operator Recommended.
owner=* The forest owner Recommended.
admin_level=* The level Recommended. Use for giving the admin level of the owner if it is a public or government-related entity; for instance, a French forêt communale would be tagged admin_level=8.
source=* The source used Optional.
protect_class=* Protection class ID Optional. Use if the forestry area has also been designated a protected area as defined by IUCN protected area categories.
protection_title=* The forest owner Optional. Use if the forestry area has also been designated a protected area as defined by IUCN protected area categories.
related_law=* The related law Optional. Use for giving the title of the edict or legal text which establishes or regulates the forestry area.
leisure=* nature_reserve Optional. Use if the area allows human visitation to enjoy nature.

Forestry compartments

The tag boundary=forestry_compartment is used to describe a physically materialized forestry compartment. There must be a 1:1 correspondence, that is to say one boundary=forestry_compartment relation by compartment, and one compartment by boundary=forestry_compartment relation. Consequently, boundary=forestry_compartment relations should never overlap. Note that a forestry area is not always divided into compartments.

The link between a forestry area and its compartments is spatial, as for all boundary relations: a compartment is considered part of a forestry area if and only if its boundary=forestry_compartment relation is spatially fully encompassed by the boundary=forestry relation. Do not include boundary=forestry_compartment relations as role:subarea members of the corresponding boundary=forestry relation; such modelling is disputed and widely considered redundant.

A boundary=forestry_compartment relation should have the following tags:

Suggested tagging for boundary=forestry_compartment
Key Value Discussion
type boundary Mandatory
boundary forestry_compartment Mandatory
compartment_ref The compartment ref Recommended. According to the Map what's on the ground principle, this tag's value must be the one displayed on the ground; if official databases records a more detailed ref — for instance one including a forest ref —, one should remove these additional details and only keep the compartment ref as displayed on the ground. This is not a simple ref tag, as such tags are already used on existing boundary=forestry_compartment without standardization, so their current value cannot be assumed to be what compartment_ref means.
name A name Optional. If and only if applicable, the compartment can be named with this tag. Don't confuse name and ref! A name is a word or group of words with a intrisic meaning, whereas a ref is a sequence of numbers/letters whose meaning exists only in the context of a larger forestry area. If you want to use this tag, think twice: it is likely you're trying to tag a ref, not a name, as typical compartments have only a reference, not a name.

As a forestry area is supposed to be managed as a whole, it is not useful to tag each compartment belonging to a forestry area with tags applying to the whole forest; such tags should be applied on the enclosing forestry area entity. For instance, the operator of the forestry area is most probably unique, so an operator tag should not be applied on each compartment, only on the forestry area entity.

Transition of existing tagging

The following table explains how existing tagging can be replaced with the new tagging scheme. Note that automated edits should be conducted only in consultation with the community. See the Automated Edits code of conduct for more details.

With regard to the deprecation of landuse=forest, entities with this tag would be considered for migration to the new tagging scheme. This should not be an automated operation: deciding if a wooded area is managed or not will often be done on a case-by-case basis, or need local knowledge.

Current tagging New tagging
natural=wood+managed=no natural=wood
natural=wood+managed=yes
landuse=forest or natural=wood, where the area is a managed forestry area
landuse=forest or natural=wood, where the area is a forestry compartment
landuse=forest, where the area is not a managed forestry area natural=wood
natural=wood, where the area is not a managed forestry area natural=wood (no change)

Examples

US National Forest

A timberstand improvement area in a US National Forest would be tagged this way:

Forestry area in a UK National Park

In such case, the forestry area would be subject to National Park laws/regulations, so it would be mapped as a separate entity, but not as an enclave in the National Park:

Being encompassed in a protected area and not an enclave in it, the protected area laws/regulations would apply to the forestry area.

French forêt communale

The forêt communale de Chauffecourt would be modelled by a relation tagged this way:

Compartment #6 of this forêt communale would be modelled as a relation tagged this way:

Australian state forest

The Putty State Forest relation would be tagged this way:

Is this a forestry area?

Here are some special cases where the applicability of the proposed boundary=forestry relation may need clarification.

Case Applicable? Why?
Illegal agricultural deforestation area No It most likely lacks precise boundaries, which are a prerequisite to be modelled as boundary=forestry. In addition, once the deforestation is started, the area likely does not keep its wooded state for long and is thus out of scope for OSM.
Legal forestry concession with illegal logging Yes Even if the logging is illegal, the area is wooded, and forestry is the goal of the concession, which should have verifiable boundaries. Of course, if the area becomes totally, permanently deforested, without letting natural regeneration take place or replanting, the area is no longer a forestry area.
Wooded land, whose trees are managed (pruned, for instance) without verifiable boundaries No If the area limits are not verifiable, it should not be modelled as a boundary=forestry relation.
The  Black Forest No Even if it is a mostly managed, mostly wooded land, which is commonly known as a whole, single wooded area, with local forestry works, its boundaries are neither distinct nor verifiable, hence disputable, so it is not to be modelled with a boundary=forestry relation. That being said, the underlying physical, wooded lands themselves are still eligible to modelling with natural=wood, and individual, distinct forestry areas within it may be mapped with boundary=forestry, as long as they match the above criteria.
Mostly wooded area used for mushrooms or sap collection It depends There is extraction of resources which are associated with wooded areas, so the only missing criteria is boundaries: are they distinct of standard land lot boundaries and verifiable? If so, you can use boundary=forestry relation; if not, it is not applicable, as the boundaries are not verifiable.
Wooded area used for logging (one can see stubs) but without verifiable boundaries No Wood is extracted, but the boundaries of the extraction area are unverifiable.
A unique, whole forestry area with wood extraction and verifiable boundaries, but fragmented in distinct, separate areas Yes If the fragmented area is still considered in its entirety as a unique forestry area, then it is to be modelled with a unique boundary=forestry relation, which would enclose all the separate pieces of wooded land; use natural=wood for the physical wooded land.
A wooded area with distinct existence and verifiable boundaries, used for wood extraction, which contain screes and glades Yes The boundary's verifiablity and wood extraction qualifies it for a boundary=forestry relation. As this relation is about forest management, if the screes and glades are considered part and parcel of the forestry area, the relation will not treat them as exclaves of the forestry area. These non-wooded areas are to be mapped by their own entities, and the wooded land around with natural=wood entities.
A wooded land lot, without traces of forestry work on the ground, in which the boundaries are mere boundary stones No Without traces of forestry work, the materialization of boundaries in a way which is distinct of standard land lots is required.
A wooded land lot, without traces of forestry work on the ground but with boundaries marked in a way distinct of adjacent land lots Yes The materialization of boundaries in a way which is distinct of standard land lots is enough (it is, as explain above, technically forestry), unless you are sure the specific marks used are unrelated to forestry.
A US National Forest Likely, no Typically, in US National Forests, forestry area covers only specific parts of the national forest. Thus, the forestry areas may be mapped by themselves, but the National Forest itself is not to be considered a forestry area.

Taginfo comparison

Approved Tag Deprecated Tag

Applies to

This tagging scheme applies to relation boundary relations.

Rendering

For renderers which wish to render boundary=forestry and/or boundary=forestry_compartment, it is suggested to render the perimeter of the area, and to not use a fill.

In legends or editors, a forestry area could be labelled "Managed forest: mainly wooded, defined area managed by humans (border marks, wood extraction, management of forest stand)". A compartment could be labelled "Managed forest compartement".

Features/Pages affected

External discussions

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

References

Voting

Voting has ended

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This excellent tagging proposal finally gives us a way to unambiguously map forestry areas and the access/ownership/management rights and restrictions on them without confusing these management-boundaries with the land-cover and water features that also exist. --Adamfranco (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. the proposal is a little less problematic than the previous one, but forestry is a landuse and the correct tag of a landuse is landuse=* :), it is incoherent and unnecessarily complex to make relations for that Marc marc (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This is addressed in the "Why use boundary=* and not landuse=*, for instance landuse=forestry?" section. Penegal (talk)
no, this rational is wrong. a residential area with a pond isn't a issue (ex ex this pond https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/586363251 inside landuse=residential https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/586363251), despite "it is not subject to residential, notbody live in the pond". a retail area with a pond isn't an issue, a farmland with a pond isn't a issue... and the same with a parking or any "a tree isn't growing there" area, in fact landuse forestry doesn't mean "area 100% used for growing trees" Marc marc (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Note that a forestry area is left out of forestry work 98 % of the time. You will hardly find a retail, agricultural or residential area left unused most of the time. Penegal (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That is because landuse=forest is not actually for land use, it is for a tree covered areas Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Much needed system in forests tagging. Great job with rewriting the proposal! --Mashin (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I support clear and unambiguous tagging for forestry areas, and the deprecation of landuse=forest, which has become so overloaded that it has lost all meaning as a land use. In addition, the resolution of "6 ways to tag a forest" is a sorely needed improvement. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I appreciate the deprecation of landuse=forest in favour of natural=wood, but mapping which forest (and which forest subdivisons‽) belongs to whom would only result in lots of unnecesary relations and boundaries and is hardly verifiable on the ground. If such things should even be mapped, landuse=forestry is a much better and simpler choice. --Riiga (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
As one individual editor, I support separating boundary=* and landuse=*, in spite of my comments. I would encourage you to use both correspondingly if needed afterwards, but separate from whether this proposal on boundary=* should be voted for. Deprecating landuse=forest is ok. ---- Kovposch (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
For those that missed it, in the Rationale section of the proposal above there is a specific note that addresses the top-level key suggestion: "Why use boundary=* and not landuse=*, for instance landuse=forestry?" --Adamfranco (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
this rational is wrong. a residential area with a pond isn't a issue (ex ex this pond https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/586363251 inside landuse=residential https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/586363251), despite "it is not subject to residential, notbody live in the pond". a retail area with a pond isn't an issue, a farmland with a pond isn't a issue... and the same with a parking or any "a tree isn't growing there" area, in fact landuse forestry doesn't mean "area 100% used for growing trees" Marc marc (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Note that a forestry area is left out of forestry work 98 % of the time. You will hardly find a retail, agricultural or residential area left unused most of the time. Penegal (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That is because landuse=forest is not actually for land use, it is for a tree covered areas Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. There is definitely some tagging needed to describe "this land is used for forestry" without introducing the implication that "every square metre of this land is covered with trees". --Kevin Kenny (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. See above reply. ---- Kovposch (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I'll be very glad to see landuse=forest finally deprecated. While I may have never seen a forestry compartment myself, I'm sure that they exist since they are included in the proposal. I'll be glad to have a workable tagging scheme to map all of the well-marked forestry areas near me. --Aweech (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I'm not going to vote yes to adding admin_level tags to forests. --Adavidson (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This feature is inherently not verifiable on the ground. We do not need more of these features beyond the well-accepted exceptions like administrative boundaries. It goes directly against the main principle of OSM. -- Eiskalt-glasklar (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Verifiability is addressed in the #Boundaries section, which explains that explicit physical boundaries are required. Penegal (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Carnildo (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --literan (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. AnakinNN (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Introducing a new key for forest compartments is perfectly fine. I can't agree with all the other things included in this proposal, e.g. forcing to use relations where areas are sufficient in many places; merging protected land areas into the same tag. I also don't see why it's necessary to deprecate landuse=forest and use a 'boundary' relation instead. This might work for areas where such boundaries exist and can be verified, but not for "some wooden lands that are used for forestry". --Mueschel (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
"forcing to use relations where areas are sufficient in many places" where it is happening? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The new tag "applies to: relation". Neither to areas nor multi-polygons. --Mueschel (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Penegal (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Liqid1010 (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Serpyllum (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Yes for admin̞level because it is interesting to know which legal rule applies when you enter this area. (common or private forest). Pay attention that if boundary is represented on very small pieces (e.g. 50mx50m) rendition might be quite unreadable. Yes for only one tag for forests. There is no difference seen on the field between a private tree and a non private tree. Forest compartments must match what is seen. If half of an administrative compartment is cut it must be possible to draw two areas with same reference. --DF45 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Well written proposal here. I've mapped lots of tree areas and often struggle with whether to use one of the various existing tags when the criteria doesn't exactly fit one way or another. Practically all trees in my area (suburban USA) were replanted in the last 100 years or so, so are they managed then? When a revolutionary war era farm is replanted with trees, is that managed? This approach clarifies the whole situation. --ElliottPlack (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Well argued. It also makes sense to deprecate landuse=forest at this point. --JeroenHoek (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --PG7 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. at least a consistent tagging schema for forests! --DupontLajoie (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nick Sokornov (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Well-stated argumentation --Qiriner (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While I agree with the boundary=forestry and compartment tagging, I cannot understand why banning landuse=forest is part of the package. I disagree with this deprecation, and as a result, vote no. --JB (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Because it would let two tags for managed wooded lands, the new, unambiguous one, and the old ambiguous landuse=forest, which means that the proposed tagging scheme would just be another way to map managed wooded lands, increasing the confusion on this issue. Deprecating the ambiguous landuse=forest allows to prevent that. Penegal (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The old battle between deleting the natural=wood tag because «all wooded areas are now forests»: I am not sure I have a definitive opinion, but I am sure it should not be inserted anywhere in a proposal that includes other elements. JB (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. as said by others, a landuse should use landuse ans the "rationale" is not... rational. Tagging a place used for forestry in general (not only the forest itself) seems hard to be "verifiable on ground". In my area woods are used as managed forests... from time to time, it looks like a wood. When cut and replanted, it looks like a forestry, landuse is the correct way to describe those areas. --Nospam2005 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks verifiable to me. --Carnildo (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This one yes. Did I say that it was never verifiable? --Nospam2005 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Then that seems to me to be an argument against inappropriate use of the proposed tagging scheme, not against the scheme as such. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Defining something not verifiable on ground as boundary, April Fools must be late this year --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Verifiability is addressed in the #Boundaries section, which explains that explicit physical boundaries are required. Penegal (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
No need to give n times the same bad answer. When people vote, normally they read the proposal first. A wild wooded area can be considered "managed" when its limits are clearly materialized: that's exactly the issue, we have woods that are managed but with none of those attributes. --Nospam2005 (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The proposal must be about verifiable features, which includes geometry: if the limits between managed and unmanaged wooded area are not materialized, they are hardly verifiable. That's an OSM principle, either with current or proposed tagging. That being said, if there is a verifiable way to tell the limits that this proposal does not take into account, you can still map the area with proposed tagging, as the verifiable limit examples given are not limitative; there may be other, less standard ones. Penegal (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
To me it looks like you didn't understand the purpose of the proposal, because it is trying to solve the very same problem you are complaining about. Currently people map piece of wooded area as polygon and put landuse=forest without even knowing if it is used for forestry and where the boundaries are. This proposal is saying: map all wooded areas as natural=wood and if there is a verifiable boundary for forestry activity then map it as boundary=forestry. --Mashin (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I'm voting in favor of this proposal but with reservations. I agree that landuse=forest needs to be depreciated but would have rather used landuse=forestry Introducing a Boundary tag seem wrong to be. We are talking about landuse. I do expect the OP work with the iD and JOSM developers implement the new tagging scheme. I also hope that we discourage people from mass conversion of the depreciated tag landuse=forest. Glassman (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Clear argumentation and proposal --Zorglubu (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Unibasil (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Laznik (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --P3tr0viCh (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I think this makes forest boundaries clearer, when I was mapping, I found lots of lots of forestry areas and now this tagging would deprecate the landuse=forest for good. --Ottwiz (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Cartographer10 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Владимир К (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Forestry is more kind-of a territory (Key:boundary) rather then just a bunch of trees. --Miroff (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I'm not 100% sure about restricting these boundaries tag to relations, but that seems reasonable to me. --Gileri (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I think this proposal is a good step forward, but we should be cautious with mapping and approving paper entities like boundaries. On-the ground verifiability should remain at the heart of OSM. --501ghost (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The proposal mandates on-the-ground verifiability. Penegal (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eginhard (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I strongly support this proposal. The quiet RFC proves that all previous considerations have been taken seriously and are incorporated in this complex proposal. Well done, and happy we finally can get rid of landuse=forest ! --Bert Araali (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While I understand that the landuse=forest vs natural=wood situation is complicated and confusing, deprecating landuse=forest in favor of a new boundary construct seems destined to create even more confusion from where I'm standing. Countries like Germany have virtually no forest that is completely unmanaged, which is reflected in the fact that in Germany, landuse=forest is actually more commonly used than natural=wood. --Recoil16 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
There can be lots of previously managed wooded lands which no longer are but still seem managed; in such cases, the first indices of management to disappear are the boundary marks. That is common in France, where many small wooded lots are left unmanaged because they are too small for an economically viable management. Given the current confusion around this issue, them being mapped as landuse=forest may simply reflect the fact that the mapper thought that they were still managed, or that (s)he did not care and used this as a synonym of natural=wood. Current tagging practices don't allow us to interpret landuse=forest as "this specific land is managed through forestry"; there are too ambiguous for that. Penegal (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
And the opposite is true, in France too, where some woods look somehow "wild" i.e. with no obvious management, no boundary marks but where trees are cut form time to time and trees get replanted.
So we need different tags, for wild woods, for managed woods and maybe managed woods. Woods or forests of course. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not. And small woods even if trees get cut from time to time doesn't make a forestry, does it? Usually we use a tag to define how it looks (natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=...) and another to refine (forest=managed for instance) --Nospam2005 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. But the proposed boundary should also be applicable to closed ways and not just relations. --Woazboat (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Protoxenus (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC) There is a significant difference between landuse and natural. This should also be in the foreground when using main tags. Delimiting forestry areas with a boundary tag is a misunderstood use of the boundary tag.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I am not ready to abandon landuse=forest - I have only now become aware that this proposal being accepted would essentially lead to a re-evaluation of every single landuse=forest area. Also, personally I find it rather un-interesting whether something is the subject of "forestry activity", this is a niche interest. I am not against people tagging that, but certainly not if this means that I have to get rid of landuse=forest and replace it by yet another un-verifiable boundary relation. --Woodpeck (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Well the proposal states that boundary=forestry can only be used when verifiable on the ground, which is an improvement over currently unverifiable landuse=forest that goes again OSM principles and you are defending. --Mashin (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how landuse=forest is unverifiable. It is verifiable on the ground and using satellite imagery. --Mdeen (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the presence of trees is verifiable from imagery, but not where the forestry managed part ends. You can do survey for posted boundary, but that is exactly what this proposal is saying (and how landuse=forest has not been used or even instructed to use). --Mashin (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. First I was feeling like voting no, but after some consideration I think it is a very good idea to separate the simple statement that there are trees growing there (natural=wood on the area) and any information whether or how a forest is managed in a specialized relation. Regular users don't care about wood management and can now safely avoid the complication. Basic tagging is really simple and intuitive and all fights about natural=wood vs. landuse=forest could end now. --Nop (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as Woodpeck / Protoxenus --Fx99 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as User:Woodpeck. The proposed change is rather fundamental. This idea needs to sit some time in mappers' heads before a proposal of such weight can pass. I fear that we end up with a forestry version of public transport tagging. --Nakaner (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as User:Woodpeck. Can't this be achieved w/o deprecating landuse=forest? --ToniE (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the current mess with this tag and natural=wood, I can't see how, as the problem mainly lies in the fact that there is no consensus about what landuse=forest means: is it wooded or not (Hint: what is called a forest is not necessarily all-wooded)? Managed or not? There is no reliable way to change its definition it in every contributor mind, and this confusion must be removed to solve the issue. Penegal (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as Penegal and User:Woodpeck, we need more time and in my eyes a different key than boundary and the tags should be allowed on areas and multipolygons. --Skyper (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. far too broad-reaching & the use of relations makes mapping overly complicated. A vote on a minor feature is not the appropriate way to make such a fundamental change. SK53 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I'm not sure I fully understand the proposal. What I think it means is: Any wooded area should be tagged natural=wood or landcover=trees regardless of it being part of a managed forest or not. The proposal does not state a preference for any of these two tags. The landuse=forest should not be used any more. If and ONLY if we have a managed forest with limits that are clearly marked on the ground, the limits of this managed forest can be mapped as a boundary=forestry relation, while the wooded areas would still be tagged as natural=wood or landcover=trees. Likewise if the managed forest has compartments which are clearly marked on the ground, these compartments can be mapped using a boundary=forest_compartment relation. Did I get this right? --Lyx (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Lyx: yes, you had it perfect! Penegal (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I would have preferred this to be in two separate proposals/votes, but as I would vote yes on both anyway, I'm voting yes now on the combined proposal. --Lyx (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Two things are mixed together that describe different things. First, the mixed use of landuse=forest vs. natural=wood vs. landcover trees and whether or not there is a forest use. On the other hand, a possible division of a forest area as a forest boundary. There are regular forest boundaries, even if there is no forestry use. It is unclear what is to be recorded as boundary=forestry. For Germany, it would be at least the forest sub-area, depending on the region. The use of boundary=forestry must necessarily be discuted internationally separately and in detail. --streckenkundler (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
yes, you were welcome to join international discussion [1] --Mashin (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as streckenkundler --Dooley (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Robybully (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC) I see the opportunities. Less confusions for wood tagging and maybe some big wood multipolygons can be split also. I would just like to add this tags also to multipolygons, not only to relations. Then it would be fine.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --SafetyIng (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. to stop wood vrs. forest ... Jo Cassel (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. deprecating a tag that is used nearly five million times is madness --voschix (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The longer the community waits to solve the landuse=forest/natural=wood problem, the more entities will need recheck/correction. "Madness" would be to keep waiting and let the problem grow as it was done until now. There is no need to be mean. Penegal (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Per Woodpeck / Nakaner. I think the concept of forest boundaries is interesting in itself, but I believe this proposition sould not be used to close the old natural or landuse=forest debate at the same time. Romuald71 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Mammi71 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mammi71: Please be polite indicate why you vote against a proposal (this is a documented part of the proposal process). That way a followup version of the proposal can take these reasons into account. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I am all for deprecating landuse=forestry; in my local area it gets applied indiscriminately to anywhere there are trees, e.g. in a park, as soon as there are more than three trees together. I also appreciate the switch away from the landuse key. If a forest is managed and to what goal is out of scope for most OSM users, it is a niche, and very well served with niche tagging. --Hungerburg (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.--Aeonesa (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Aeonesa: Please be polite indicate why you vote against a proposal (this is a documented part of the proposal process). That way a followup version of the proposal can take these reasons into account. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I support this clear tagging scheme for forestry areas as well as the deprecation of landuse=forest. Those voting against this deprecation seem to think it would be a massive problem, but in reality it would just be a clear statement that natural=wood and landuse=forest mean exactly the same thing and natural=wood is the peferred tag that should be used going forward. In practice this is already true. -- Ezekielf (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --TheBlackMan (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@TheBlackMan: Please be polite and indicate why you vote against a proposal (this is a documented part of the proposal process). That way a followup version of the proposal can take these reasons into account. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --LLlypuk82 (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. for the same reason as Woodpeck --Surveyor54 (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I oppose "boundary=forest": Ich sehe Probleme mit Datenschutz, legaler Verfügbarkeit der Daten, Verfizierbarkeit vor Ort. I see problems with data protection, legal availability of data, availability on site. Galbinus (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Similar problem for boundary=national_park. Yet many mappers have mapped these without problem. Warin61 (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it basic OSM principle: If there is no verifiable, legal source, then you can't map it. So if there is no such source, how you distinguished between landuse=forest and natural=wood at the moment? Aighes (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
OSM does have access in some areas to official legal sources of forestry areas. You may not have that ... so don't map it! Some forestry areas have regimented planting and/or different rypes of trees that are easy to pick out from areas where things have occurred naturally, so they may be mapped. You may not have that ... so don't map it! National parks pose a similar problem - boundaries can be hard to determine on the ground or by imagery. Warin61 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Required due to landuse=forest used to indicate the presence of trees rather than a landuse. National parks are also a 'land use' yet mapped as boundaries. Data protection? If you don't know from public sources of OSM approved sources than don't use this tag. Present voting would require a further 21 yes votes to pass, at present it fails. Warin61 (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I oppose this change. I am not comfortable with using the boundary key for other than political or administrative purposes. IMHO a landuse cover is perfectly mappable by either landuse or natural. --Mdeen (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
boundary=national_park is in use, no reason why the key boundary cannot be used for forestry. The key landuse is for the human use of the land .. not for land cover. Warin61 (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As mDeen says, "...administrative purposes" boundary=national_park is administrative, not physical.
You mean for administration of forestry activities? I fail to see how is boundary for forestry administration more physical than national park boundary. -Mashin (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
boundary=national_park is administrative .. as is boundary=forestry the administration of the area is for forestry. Warin61 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I refer to the reasons given by streckenkundler, Woodpeck, Nakaner and others. --Chrysopras (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Tagging of a "boundary" for forestry areas isn't a good idea, i can't accept this. Why not "natural:wood" with additional tag "wood:forestry_use"? It's easy and not a mix with the "boundary"-tag. Dx125 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
natural=wood should have trees all the time, in a forestry area trees may be gone after harvesting .. so no trees but still a forestry area. Warin61 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
If "natural:water" can sometimes be dry, you can add an additional tag "seasonal:yes", for example. If "natural:wood" had an additional tag "wood:forestry_use", the harvester could also have felled trees. I see no problem. Make it easy, not complicated. Dx125 (talk)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as streckenkundler --Thetornado76 (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I'm on the same page as Mdeen.--Gatalin (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.The proposal seems not well-engineered to me. It mixes the landuse=forest deprecation with a new boundary tag. There should be a change in the tag's name (forest ./. forestry) which is claimed to be important for native speakers, but it's a bit late for a change. I also habe problems with updating the boundaries' data from legal sources. All in all: no. --Vademecum (talk)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Because of the impact I would suggest to split the proposal into the depreciation of landuse=forest and the boundary=forestry. I support the depreciation, but would prefer a better plan of attack for such a widely used and general tag. As for the boundary I'm on the same page as Mdeen --E de Wit (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Per Woodpeck / Nakaner --Tracker51 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't think using the boundary key for this is the way to go also I would like to keep landuse=forest
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Aighes (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Aighes: could you explicit your opinion? Penegal (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as Woodpeck --Miche101 (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't see the point of replacing the current landuse=forest with boundary=forestry. E.g., in the country which I'm from, Belarus, all forests are managed by state-run forestries, but the actual boundaries of each forestry is not a public information and it can be barely retrieved from surveying. Knowledge of which operator/forestry manages a given tree-covered area seems very specific to me and, if needed, it can be added to OSM by creating relations with all relevant pieces of forest/wood rather than replacing the existing scheme with boundaries. --Yury Yatsynovich (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I approve the deprecation of landuse=forest but oppose the introduction of a new type of boundary relation as relations are error-prone and difficult to manipulate by average mappers. --RainerU (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I just looked up on the ohsome dashboard how much of landuse=forest by area is mapped as relations, in my home province it is 78%, in neighbouring Bavaria it is 75%. If one thing will not change with this proposal, then it is getting used to relations. --Hungerburg (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I like the unification of natural=wood and landuse=forest because currently the difference is useless. I like the tagging of forestry compartments (in my region in Germany they are well-signposted and useful for orientation) But: In most cases closed ways are enough and easier than a relation. (The tags should also be allowed for ways. ) I'd like to see more real world tagging examples (including geometry!) from many countries. I will vote yes in a third vote if an easy way of saying "There are trees and they are used for forestry." is available without knowing what organizations manage which part of the forest. --Lkw (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC) After a clarication in the discussion I changed my opinion. --Lkw (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While I support the deprecation of landuse=forest as such, the boundary=forestry idea is a completely different subject and should be handled in a separate proposal. I am likely to oppose that; introducing a new boundary type is very likely to complicate things altogether. We map landuse=farmland or landuse=allotments regardless of who is in charge of it, so why do we need such thing when it comes to forests? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Finally unifying natural=wood and landuse=forest after a decade of needless complications would be a sufficient benefit to make this proposal a net positive in my opinion. --Tordanik 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I do not care about boundary=forestry. but i prefer natural=forest, so it need a extended discussion --Kenji (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This proposal should be split into two proposals: One about deprecation or change of definition of landuse=forest and another one about the boundary/usage of the area. In most countries it is not really possible/feasible to determine the boundary for a unit of managed forest (private/state forests, all intermixed, often shared with others). Also often they don't have names. Thus my recommendation for two proposals because IMHO the definition of landuse=forest should be changed to include all kinds of dense trees (or deprecated with care because it is used very often). In a next step one can develop a better system to map the usage. --SammysHP (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Mapbear66 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mapbear66: could you explicit your opinion? Penegal (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Penegal: It is illogical. Here in the UK our forestry is planted with fast growing pines and spruces. It is no more natural than an allotment with even less wildlife. We have no natural forestry. Marking it natural=wood makes no sense whatsoever. Let alone then adding a boundary tag on a relation, which many mappers seem to struggle with. This looks like it may fit one country and everyone else can lump it.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Maybe I overread it, but what's wrong with the natural=wood and managed=yes/no variant? I can't really see which advantages outweigh the disadvantages of a relation (e.g. much more difficult editing especially for beginners). I'm not sure if the information whether a forest is used for forestry or not is important enough to use such powerful (but also complicated) tools like relations. --Shaun das Schaf (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Shaun das Schaf: "what's wrong with the natural=wood and managed=yes/no variant"? It's only one of the six referenced approaches to forests, and none of them prevails. To remove the ambiguity about forests, we would need to use only one variant, or deprecate all six with one new approach. This proposal tried the second possibility, but the first one could still be used; just, I don't see how we can deprecate 5 of the 6 approaches, and track the progress of the re-tagging of entities. If you have an idea, I'll happily read it. Penegal (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal., not least on aesthetic grounds: what you are describing is not a 'boundary', it's a closed area. As someone who spends a lot of time struggling with cleaning up forestry after other mappers I'm also worried that what you're describing here is not intuitive and the use of the word "boundary" and will confuse tiro mappers leaving me with yet more cleaning up to do. The current landuse=forest vs natural=wood is not perfect by any means, but it does a perfectly adequate job. This will only make things worse. --Paulatthehug (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2021
@Paulatthehug: given the contradictory opinions expressed here and the six different referenced tagging about forests, I can hardly think that this tagging "does a perfectly adequate job". Penegal (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Penegal: The "six" approaches actually largely boil down to one - approach 1 (2 is only rarely used, 3 is just a variation on 1, 4 is 1 with an extra tag which has been used less than 1000 times, 5 is also small beer compared to 1, 6 is really just 1 again but perhaps needing some tidying from ground surveys later). Approach 1 is clearly well established and if anyone cares enough then it would be easy to clean up 2-6 (and indeed I often do just that, especially with 6 which I come across most often). Paulatthehug (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Whatever one might think about the ambiguity of "landuse=forest", it ist too late at this stage of the OSM project to change a well-established tagging. Apart from that the "boundary"-idea, connected with multipolygons, might be too much rocket science for potential new mappers. Never change a running system. --Pfad-Finder (talk)
@Pfad-Finder: given the contradictory opinions expressed here and the six different referenced tagging about forests, I can hardly think that this tagging is "well-established". Penegal (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Cafeconleche (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --TreeTracks (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC) This is an excellent initiative to separate the activity of forestry from the related, but often different, aspects of the nature of the vegetation cover on the ground.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. agree with Nop + Hungerburg, I just don't see why it shouldn't be applicable to closed ways as well (like boundary=national_park) --Luzandro (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Deprecating a tag like landuse=forest is a no go. And landuse=forest vs natural=wood are different things not overlapping. Flohoff (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Flohoff: given the six different approaches about these tags and the different opinions expressed here, I seriously doubt that these tags "are different things not overlapping"; at least, the perception of these tags is highly messy, and that's the problem this proposal wants to solve. Penegal (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. OSMRogerWilco (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This would be extremely useful in the part of the US where I live. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. A great deal of work has gone into numerous drafts of this proposal, I believe the current draft is ready for Approval by our community. I, too, found (and find) the deprecation of landuse=forest to be uncomfortable, but after some deep thought, I agree that while Approach 1 is what is largely used, this Proposal is harmonious with both reality of "what is in the world" and "how we wish to map a complex subject." It will, however, take time for this transition to occur. Nonetheless, over time, which OSM has adequate quantities of (as a long-term project), this Proposal not only allows the "niche" and "more-sophisticated" applications of Forestry around the world (a true, human activity that OSM truly WANTS to capture) to be accurately modeled in our map data, it also allows natural=wood to be applied by novice, intermediate and expert mappers alike to "tag what I see" (whether "in-person / on-the-ground" or "aerial / satellite imagery"), leaving the tagging of "Forest management" to those who read this wiki, understand how to apply its tagging and do so. It is (at long last) a comprehensive, balanced plan for what OSM needs to do to both clean up existing tagging, provide sophisticated tagging for sophisticated needs, and allow novice mappers (or those who want a simple tag, like natural=wood) to be simply applied where it makes sense to do so. This proposal simultaneously eliminates the ambiguity of landuse=forest while allowing natural=wood to mean "trees," at the same time it provides laser-sharp focus on how to tag sophisticated Forestry areas with what is required to do so, boundaries (and sometimes compartments): win-win. --Stevea (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Stranger_i (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --akadouri (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. cause the new solution with a relation is more complex and landuse=forest is going to be deprecated --Strubbl (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
75% of the forest area mapped in Bavaria are mapped as relations. Now. --Hungerburg (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. landuse=forest needs to go because it's definition is way too general. Forests should just be tagged as forests and not be confused with any other any other tag that is part of its definition (natural=wood) and a too-general use-case. Verifiable forest boundaries should be tagged as separate elements, as-proposed.
Using boundary=* is also an appropriate choice over landuse=* here because a boundary is by-definition more-identifiable and accurate compared to landuse, which is usually mapped at the discretion of the mapper's opinion. It's use case for defined forest boundaries here is perfect. 
landuse=forest should be depreciated with no fear of it's current usage because of the confusion it already causes. Refining its definition to what is being proposed with boundary=forestry also is not an option either. Not only because landuse=* is not as-appropriate as boundary=*, but because changing its definition will require a massive effort:
  1. To change the millions of objects wrongly tagged
  2. Make sure that future mappers don't continue to wrongly tag forests because they are unaware of the definition change
  3. The tag's usage of the key landuse=* confuses them
  4. They see many of the non-cleaned-up uses of landuse=forest and continue to use it the tag.
--Lectrician1 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The choice of words can mean a lot: for people speaking German, if they hear forest, they may think of Forst not Wald (wood). While for native English speakers wood and forest might be just two words for just the same, the german word Forst emphasizes the aspect of management, a.k.a. forestry. They rarely think of a clearcut though, where there is Forst, but not Wald. I guess you are french, and you know the feature as forêt, so perhaps you meant to say: woods should be just tagged wood, and not confused…? --Hungerburg (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hungerburg: Fascinating! In English, "forest" and "woods" are perfect synonyms, while "forestry" is the word that emphasizes an aspect of management. This seems to explain the diverging usages of the tagging. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@ZeLonewolf: Don't get too excited, from following the German forum, meanwhile I learned, that there are people who, when they get shown a photo of a clearcut and get asked, what do they see: They will say, I see a wood (Wald). Many might say, I see a wasteland, a clearcut, scrubs (if it is not so recent), etc. Language alone only gets you so far, especially in such a curiously heated debate. --Hungerburg (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Well put together proposal that I fully agree with. landcover=trees seems useless now though, doesn't it? --BubbaJuice (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. No to this change. Edit: As per Woodpeck.--MARIN (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@MARIN: It would be nice if you could say why you're against this proposal, this helps the author(s) to change it to suit what people want. This is a documented part of the proposal process. --GoodClover (a.k.a. Olive, GodClovere, ) (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Smollett (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Murcik (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Finally this is getting sorted out, and by a professional too! It seems weird to me to keep landcover=trees though, but I understand deprecating old tags isn't the main aim of this proposal. --GoodClover (a.k.a. Olive, GodClovere, ) (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While this proposal is highly professional, some aspects are thoroughly thought out and general idea is well received, it introduces multiple controversial decisions that will spark heated discussions for years to come (yes, that's landuse=forest). I'm personally most annoyed by using admin_level=* on a forestry, while in fact it describes admin level of owner (and/or operator). Using admin_level=* for non-administrative boundaries will lead to complaints from lazy data consumers. Hereby I propose subtags operator:admin_level=* and owner:admin_level=*, which could be used for various other situations, where regular operator:type=public is too ambiguous. Next reason i would have rather not vote yes was to suggest addr:*=* subtags, because there are places (like Estonia) where each land plot has an address rather than building, like it's common in OSM. Currently i have seen addr:housename=X forestry nodes in middle of forest. Combining forestry areas, public cadastral maps and addresses has great potential and is perfectly verifiable for armchair mapper. I wouldn't consider on the ground problem very significant rural forest areas are often mapped from aerials, not surveyed. Sorry for poor formatting, feel free to add line breaks, if you are familiar with wiki formatting. --Fghj753 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Absurdly comprehensive and to-the-point. —Sterling (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This is an excellent solution to a problem that desparately needed solving and I'm very glad progress is being made at last. Hundreds of square kilometres of confusingly tagged state forests in Australia can be fixed with this and the endless discussions surrounding landuse=forest closed. --2hu4u (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Renecha (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Did not think that it is a good idea to deprecate landuse=forest --Ibanez (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ibanez: what do you suggest to solve the existing (as can be seen with above comments) confusion with natural=wood? Penegal (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. same as Woodpeck / Protoxenus (from 11 April 2021) -- Jakob48 -- 07:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't have much to say about it, but I just don't think "boundary" is a correct tag to pass the "forest/forestry" key into. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same as Woodpeck --Zineer (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same as Woodpeck plus forest has has a different meaning to forestry see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_forest --Iccaldwell (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Iccaldwell: Your argument reveals an error in the OSM Carto rendering of forests as areas covered with trees, perhaps they should be rendered differently on the OSM standard map? --Hungerburg (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same as Woodpeck et al. --Q un go (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The rationale-section mentions six different ways of mapping which is confusing to mappers. That's right, it is confusing. But I don't think that adding a seventh way will make this better in any way - the opposite will probably the case leading to even more inaccurate data then we have right now. Adjusting the documentation of landuse=forest and natural=wood, so that it's absolutely clear what to use when in any situation, might be enough for most cases. Adding more photos, tables of situations, maybe creating some decision charts will help to decide whether the one or the other tag is correct. No new tagging needed IMHO. --Hauke-stieler (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't think this tag is necessary. --SherbetS (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Sollte man nicht abschaffen, weil es im deutsprachigen Raum viel verwendet wird und Otto-Normal-Mapper das eh nicht unterscheiden kann. nogger13 -- So 18. Apr 21:52:13 CEST 2021
@Nogger13: If there is not difference in practice, why keep the distinction? Wenn es praktisch eh keinen Unterschied macht, warum dann überhaupt zur Wahl stellen? --Hungerburg (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. forestry is landuse --InsertUser (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. forestry is landuse --gscholz 09:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Zorae (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. forestry is landuse --robert-t 07:526, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. forestry is landuse --geozeisig 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --scai (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. forestry is landuse --Reino Baptista (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Hidden deprecation of widely used tag. Maraf (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Motogs (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the work involved in balancing the views of those who understand all the various issues. It’s well thought out and all aspects considered. I have one minor reservation, which is that forests that are not used for forestry are considered by the proposal to be unmanaged. There exist many woodlands/forests whose main management focus is for purposes other than timber (British English for lumber) production.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I will probably never use the boundary=forestry tag, but for those interested it looks great. Just a concern about admin_level. --H@mlet (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This is a great idea, and I think the idea to depreciate the landuse=forest tag as a part of this change is very valuable. -- Evanator (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.This proposal is very well thought-out and highly justified. --Courtney Clark
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Soldier Boy (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While I agree that landuse=forest should be deprecated, boundary=* should be used only for administrative borders. --Allison P. (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This is a reasonable update to a confusing tagging scheme Darrell (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Basically, it sounds like a good idea to me to clean up something that is a bit of a mess. But I don't like that "natural=wood" and "landcover=trees" are equated, because in the proposal it is also written that not everywhere in the forest there are trees and there are also bare areas. Therefore "landcover=trees" should also be set as deprecated (like landcover=water). The other problem I see is that in the future mappers will ask themselves "Do I need a relation around all the wooded areas or not and if so, which one?" Those who are not familiar with relations will just leave them out. With the existing tagging you just use "landuse=forest" and the case is done. The complexity is therefore not reduced but only shifted. --Aquarix (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Aquarix: the previous failed vote attempt tried to deprecate landcover=trees, but was voted down by landcover proponents. This proposal specifically sets the landcover question aside as a separate discussion in order to focus on the narrower question of forestry and landuse=forest. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Does this whole issue come from the US National Forests protected area relations frequently get a landuse=forest added?--Neves (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neves:, No. Penegal is a French forester who wants a clear way to map forestry areas. US National Forest protected areas with a landuse=forest tag added is simply a mistake and we'd remove it. -- Ezekielf (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Basically I'm absolutely in favor of this well-thought proposal but voting against it for one single reason: Mass retaggings should be carefully executed only by experienced mappers like the landuse=farm retagging and not like some of the User:ZeLonewolf/Procedure/River modernization as an example. In reality 1) "landuse=forest" will be added to the iD validator 2) tons of iD users will automatically retag without even knowing the difference between managed and unmanaged 3) even think they've done good (But it was suggested). --Buraq (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Buraq: In the area of my local_knowledge, 99% of the woods are mapped as forest. Perhaps, 99% of the woods here are in fact managed? The term in itself is quite wide in meaning, so no way for me to tell. Personally, I'd prefer, if iD or any other edit would not add "managed" to "woods" created from "forests", because others may misinterpret that as "economically used", which would be quite wrong here, as only 64% of woods are in fact economically used, according to governmental data. And without adding "managed", what would be lost?--Hungerburg (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I agree that we have two tags for forests / wood and no clear distinguation between both and it would be reasonable to unify that, I am however not in favour with the proposed boundary=forestry relations. That has a big potential for a mess in rural regions and and for inhibiting people to map landuse, if they feel lost with such a relation webbing. Therfore I vote "No". --Rainero (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. *Martin* (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I am agaist the relations part. --Basstoelpel (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Despite other user's objections of it being rushed, this is long overdue. It clarifies so many situations in the map that don't match what's on the ground and brings us a step forward in clearing this up. There's still work to do though and some clarification on managed vs unmanaged areas of something like a US National Forest. The argument that culturally it is different across the pond, doesn't seem reasonable as clarification is always better than confusion. --Wwhide (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I do not believe that boundary is the correct tag. By trying to solve one issue I beleive you are introducing another (potentially bigger) issue. Forestry areas are neither political areas or adminitrative areas in my mind. Other people have expressed this view too and if ignored it could lead to the corruption of the boundary tag. --RobJN (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If there is some form of legal designation over the land then why not use the designation tag as that is what it exists for. We use this in the UK (see examples). --RobJN (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The opportunity of cleaning up the forest tagging would be wasted if not putting a stop to the completely unscientific and commonly mistaken leaf_cycle and leaf_type scheme.--Yektara (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. for the same reason as Woodpeck --Wegabschneider (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. No because of the feared problems when changing to boundary/relations (especialy iD) --OPerivar (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. It is bizarre to propose the deprecation of a tag that is in use five million times, and that has a clear-cut definition in the wiki. This proposal does not resolve in any way the problem of the mistagged natural=forest cases. They will remain forever in the database, as we do not have the manpower to examine all 5 million potentially mistagged landuse=forest instances --voschix (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Voschix: AFAIK such a transition was done for landuse=farm. Besides, even if the transition takes years, it can still be done, and, if carefully crafted, could allow to remove a mess that lasted for years. It will be long, but does that mean it should not be attempted, and we should let this mess spreading because no one ever dared to try to solve it? Penegal (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. No because I can't map this on the ground --User:hanskuster 21:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --unsigned vote by user User:Mar Mar

Voting summary

Votes till 20 April 2021 (announced voting period): YES: 72 NO: 72 Abstain: 3 Votes till 21 April 2021: YES: 73 NO: 74 Abstain: 3