[talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

[Warin]

Hi ...
I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and came 
across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area includes 
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes National 
Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area includes 
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.

They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2 
changesets- no response so far.

They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as such I 
think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees, source=imagery" 
with no name nor other identifying tags. They are all much much larger 
than their name would suggest.

The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has tag 
'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest that has pine 
trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ... it is hair splitting 
but I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)

The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to suppress its 
rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to over write it. I 
am tempted to use the same tagging method on all three ways.

Comments please?