<div dir="ltr"><div>Oh, I should mention that the 'leisure=nature_reserve' is a concession to current rendering practice. It is not inaccurate - all of the areas that I tagged thus are in some way reserved for the processes of nature - but it is imprecise. At such time as 'boundary=protected_area' becomes something that renderers recognize more widely and treat in some sensible manner, 'leisure=nature_reserve' becomes superfluous on most of the areas. We might then decide that a nature reserve is something more or less than a protected area, but right now, the two are nearly synonymous. <br><br>I am extremely reluctant to remove the 'nature_reserve' tagging until and unless there is better rendering. I've been waiting several years. There's another political swamp there - protected_area rendering depends on implementing hstore on the main database, which ties into a whole raft of unrelated issues. <br><br></div>I mostly wouldn't care, since I render my own maps, but (a) I don't have the resources to keep up with minutely updates, and use the main map occasionally to verify that something uploaded as expected, and (b) I do care that the main map show significant features that the general public actually cares about - and large parks and wilderness areas are certainly among those features.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com" target="_blank">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As someone who has been around and around and around with this (landuse=forest on National forests) for the better part of over seven years, I agree with Steven, Paul, Elliott and Tod here. There has emerged a great deal of harmony and consensus on this topic, but I agree we could and should sharpen it up into a Best Practice. The fact that it gets re-hashed means we need to do this, preferably putting the results into our wiki.<br>
<br>
I DID tag landuse=forest on National Forests, but the boundary=protected_area tagging scheme evolved since, and with wide concurrence, it is better than what was. (The tags landuse=forest and natural=wood "devolving" into something which is now in a still-tangled "land cover" bucket should be solved, too). I also agree with the "it always has been this way" sense that landuse=forest is something akin to (if not actually) "managed timberland" and natural=wood is "more like" (but necessarily so) "primeval forest." OK, natural=wood might be tagged on second- or third-generation trees, but if they are now left alone and are intended to be left alone, natural=wood is better than landuse=forest.<br>
<br>
SteveA<br>
California<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>