[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Tod Fitch]

The issue, as I see it, is that the OSM landuse=forest means that all the land so designated is used for timber production. Thus the long discussions about natural=wood, landcover=trees, etc. In the case of the US National Forests, the boundaries are still tagged with boundary=national_park, boundary:type=protected_area, protect_class=6 and protection_title=National Forest which should be enough for a map renderer to decide to paint the area in a distinctive area.

> On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Charlotte Wolter <techlady at techlady.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>         I see your point that it's not a "natural" forest, but national 
> forests are important institutions as preserves, especially, in addition 
> to their other uses (recreation, research).
>         Having just returned from a camping vacation in the Southwest, 
> I am especially aware that the national forests, as an institution, play
> an important role there. On most map systems, they are noted by their 
> green color, and that is what most map users expect to see. They use
> the color to plan where to camp and where they can conduct certain
> activities (hunting, fishing). 
>         Shouldn't their special status be noted somehow?
> 
> Charlotte
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150817/803155ec/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1874 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150817/803155ec/attachment.bin>