<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Just for the record, I don’t disagree with Murry’s suggestion and he and I have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you’d be the most local expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcentire@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Norman<br><b>Cc:</b> hot; OSM US Talk<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman <<a href="mailto:penorman@mac.com" target="_blank">penorman@mac.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There’s plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren’t mapped, but I’m not sure how to handle them.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest of "Managed forest or woodland plantation".<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can complement it. natural=wood "Woodland where timber production does not dominate use."<br> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Murry<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>