<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for
nationa</title></head><body>If you have an area that cannot grow trees, due to altitude, inadequate groundwater, or having exposed rock rather than soil (as with many mountaintops), then, in what sense is it a managed forest? I am not talking about areas that are temporarily treeless due to the trees having been harvested.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">stevea <steveaOSM@softworkers.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="cite">Please don't confuse "land cover"
with the<br />
political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of "inside
the<br />
boundaries of a national forest."</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="cite"><br /></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="cite">One more remark. Shouldn't the
political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of "inside
the boundaries of a national forest be defined by the boundary-,
protected area-, and park:type=national_forest- tags? Moreover, how
can one tag a physical forest (areas with trees present) inside the
national forest?</blockquote>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Boundary, yes. (As Greg Troxel pointed out as "one of
the three things going on here: boundaries, landuse and land
cover"). Protected area, yes. The park:type tag seems to be
a more recent (circa 2009/2010) "invention" by Apo42, a
California-based OSM volunteer who also maps in Austria. (Being
somewhat local to one another, he and I have gone on hikes together
and discuss OSM more than occasionally). I'll let
Apo speak for himself, but I really like the park:type tag, so I use
it extensively. It seems to be something he started with his
CASIL-based California State Park uploads, but it is quite extensible
to park:type=county_park, city_park, private_park (and more), so I
continue to use that sort of syntax when it makes sense to do so.
However, I also believe the park:type tag to not be widely used
outside of California, nor is it well-documented on OSM's wiki pages
(to the best of my knowledge).</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>I do agree with Mike Thompson's statement: "If neither
of the two tags being discussed (landuse=forest, natural=wood) are
appropriate for tagging a generic area covered by trees (regardless if
it is "virgin", "managed"), it would be really
helpful to have a tag that could be used for this (i.e. indicate what
the *landcover* is). This information is useful when navigating
the back country." Yet, I continue to believe that a proper
landcover=* tag is the right way to do this. Simultaneously, I
think it proper that national forests have a landuse=forest tag, (in
addition to proper boundary= and protected_area= tags) even though
they MAY or MAY NOT be "just trees." My reasoning:
"landuse=forest" means a managed forest land, even if not
exactly 100% of it is covered by trees. Such an area that had
50% of its trees cut down (it IS a managed forest!) would STILL be a
managed forest, even though at least half of it is "not now
trees."</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>What I'm really saying is "I agree we could use better
landcover tagging." I'm not alone here.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Wilderness areas are WITHIN national forests and are designated
with the leisure=nature_reserve tag. This was discussed with my
email interaction with Troy Warburton of the USFS in Talk-us Digest,
Vol 64, Issue 1.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Here are the tags I use f<font face="Helvetica" color="#000000">or National Forests within the jurisdiction of the US
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service:</font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" color="#000000">landuse=forest<br />
boundary=national_park<br />
boundary:type=protected_area<br />
protect_class=6<br />
protection_title=National Forest<br />
ownership=national</font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" color="#000000">name=Name of
Forest</font></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>And here are the tags I use for Wilderness areas WITHIN National
Forests:</div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" color="#000000">leisure=nature_reserve<br />
boundary=national_park<br />
boundary:type=protected_area<br />
protect_class=1b<br />
protection_title=Wilderness</font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" color="#000000">ownership=national</font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" color="#000000">name=Name of
Wilderness</font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" color="#000000"><br /></font></div>
<div>Further answering Mike Thompson, I don't think it odd at all that
"parts of the U.S. National Forests are not treed, for example,
parts that are above treeline." The parts that are still
"in" the forest are still "in" the forest (which
is what landuse=forest implies), even if they are above the treeline
and don't have trees. Yes, it seems confusing, but only if you
think "landuse=forest" implies "all trees."
It doesn't: it implies "all managed forest, whether with or
without trees."</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>SteveA</div>
<div>California</div>
<p style="margin-top: 2.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid #000"></p><pre class="k9mail"><hr /><br />Talk-us mailing list<br />Talk-us@openstreetmap.org<br /><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
John F. Eldredge -- john@jfeldredge.com<br>
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria</body></html>