You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Classes 1.4.2 and 2.8.3 cover land undergoing rehabilitation in natural or agricultural contexts; could this be more consistently captured as a similar class within 3.9.0 ? Previous land use would then be needed to split out, say, industrial land rehab (petrol stations, gas plants, etc) from mining rehab.
For signifying land under a mining consent, it would seem more appropriate to capture consents of various kinds as an attribute side by side with tenure, and then capture the actual rather than intended use of the land at the time of observation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Classes 1.4.2 and 2.8.3 cover land undergoing rehabilitation in natural or agricultural contexts; could this be more consistently captured as a similar class within 3.9.0 ? Previous land use would then be needed to split out, say, industrial land rehab (petrol stations, gas plants, etc) from mining rehab.
For signifying land under a mining consent, it would seem more appropriate to capture consents of various kinds as an attribute side by side with tenure, and then capture the actual rather than intended use of the land at the time of observation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: