That makes sense to me too - seems like maybe separating the protected area boundary and tags from the land use boundary and tags into two ways would be appropriate in that case?
Or are you also suggesting that it’d be nice to be able to indicate that it’s an agricultural easement, but with a tag other than the land use? That also makes sense to me.
I agree that the protected area, as described, encompasses the landuse=farmland. The protected area is usually the entire parcel. In reality, the area being protected is just the farmland, so I’m inclined to show it as protected.
Yes, that was what I was thinking of. The protection being on the parcel rather than the explicit tilled area. In some locations there might be a surveyed exclusion for the acreage used for the residential/farmyard area with the protection being only on the non-“developed” acreage (tillage, meadows, forest, etc). In other locations the protection might be the full parcel with or without some portion being in continued use by farm buildings/residences.
I wonder if we could take some inspiration from historic building registers, which don’t necessarily confer protection in the sense of a park designation but still get tagged as heritage=*. The program that lists the structure gets tagged as heritage:operator=*. “Operator” is a funny word to use in this context, but we already use it for all kinds of affiliations anyways.