<div dir="ltr"><div>> <span style="font-size:12.8px">does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National Forest boundary, </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">No. The boundary indicated USNF ownership, not landuse/landcover.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">or should it be on the forested areas within? </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Yes, that's a more appropriate use for that tag. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Similar situation exists in the George Washington Natl Forest. <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/38.8777/-78.4453">http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/38.8777/-78.4453</a> The boundaries here represent the Lee Ranger district (an internal USFS admin boundary) do not reflect surface ownership. I get why it's so ambiguous, but the boundaries should reflect ownership on the ground.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Some efforts have made to import US Forest Service data: <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data#National_Forest_Boundaries">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data#National_Forest_Boundaries</a> Still much to be done. If there is interest, we should take the discussion to the OSM-US slack, #imports channel.</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>-- SEJ<br>-- twitter: @geomantic<br>-- skype: sejohnson8<br></div><div><br></div>A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. --<i>Ludwig Wittgenstein</i></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Andy Townsend <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" target="_blank">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I commented on <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43314846" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/c<wbr>hangeset/43314846</a> a few days ago - does landuse=forest really make sense there?<br>
<br>
For more details on the relation see <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1447414#map=15/47.9626/-120.2074" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/r<wbr>elation/1447414#map=15/47.9626<wbr>/-120.2074</a> and <a href="http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=1447414" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://osm.mapki.com/history/r<wbr>elation.php?id=1447414</a> .<br>
<br>
All I know of the area is"lots of parts of it do have lots of trees", but does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National Forest boundary, or should it be on the forested areas within? I mention this here rather because I'm sure there are people here familiar with the area, which I'm not.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.or<wbr>g/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>