I think we need both as well. I've been doing this while watching the evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always better" efforts to accomplish this. Even now!
The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the / a polygon with the outer (-most) membership. The idea of the second kind is one of these plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often made up of a complex inholding distribution containing many sometimes complex themselves inner polygons. The idea of "both" (in my mind, maybe Mike's too) is that "a good outer is a good outer." We ARE building multipolygons and they are big complex beasts around here. And we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Are you willing to "take on" the responsibility of entering a sane (for 2020) relation with "simply" a single outer polygon as member of an emerging multipolygon relation representing the national forest? Hey, tag it well and hang it up for others to add richer complexity with inner members. This is (sometimes) how we build this map. (I have offered my efforts for a decade). I believe we want to tag these with protected_area, whereas we did, but no longer, "automatically" double-tag these with natural=wood, as landuse (national protected area we manage with our Forest Service, doesn't mean it's a forest) is not landcover. As we're talking about the US, I recommend our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands. That wiki is what might be called "heavier lifting" in how we use a wiki. Part of it intends to be prescriptive, saying "here's how we might very-well tag in the USA on public lands, and if we don't, we should" (as an ideal, at least as it shapes with sharper focus). Where it dissolves into "how each state does this today," it's a DEscriptive canvas of wet paint. Heavy lifting, yes, but we can do this. That wiki might nudge things forward, I put my shoulder into this. At the federal level (which National Forests are), it does (to me) feel like a nice ideal with fairly-well-defined recommended tagging. Discuss there? How do what we enter render? That's another topic. Let's begin saying "we can, do and should enter into OSM well-tagged outer-member (only, to begin with) multipolygon relations representing national forests." With "perfect, rich structure?" Every single first draft? Let's talk in a week or month, these might take some work and discussion and work and discussion to do them. That's OK. Earth wasn't built in a day. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
