<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">My take:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">landuse=forest ==> Managed for wood, timber, lumber, paper production, etc.</div><div class="">natural=wood ==> Its got trees on it. May be managed for recreation, watershed, endangered species, etc. or it may not managed at all.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My preferred take, not fully accepted by the wiki or tagging list but certainly in use according to taginfo, is to use landcover=trees rather than natural=wood as I can’t necessarily tell even in a survey if the area is natural, managed, or not but I can tell if it has trees on it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 29, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Elliott Plack <<a href="mailto:elliott.plack@gmail.com" class="">elliott.plack@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">My take:</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_msg">landuse = forest ---> human managed<br class=""></div><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">natural = wood ---> natural</div><div class="gmail_msg"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_msg">I don't agree with designating USFS land as landuse=forest, unless we can agree to abort the use of landuse=forest for tagging clumps of trees. We need a best common practice here.</div></div></div><br class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_msg"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_msg">On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM Paul Norman <<a href="mailto:penorman@mac.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">penorman@mac.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail_msg" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 11/29/2016 7:14 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
> All I know of the area is"lots of parts of it do have lots of trees",<br class="gmail_msg">
> but does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National<br class="gmail_msg">
> Forest boundary, or should it be on the forested areas within? I<br class="gmail_msg">
> mention this here rather because I'm sure there are people here<br class="gmail_msg">
> familiar with the area, which I'm not.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
The forested areas within. Or natural=wood, both get used in practice,<br class="gmail_msg">
but that's an entire different mess.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
_______________________________________________<br class="gmail_msg">
Talk-us mailing list<br class="gmail_msg">
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="gmail_msg">
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br class="gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr" class="">-- <br class=""></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Elliott Plack<br class=""><a href="http://elliottplack.me/" class="">http://elliottplack.me</a></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Talk-us mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" class="">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>