[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

I really appreciate the productive discussion that ensued my initial
question!
In the mean time, a mapper approached me with concerns about my removing
the landuse tags from the National Forests in Utah, so I reverted those
changes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33419230 -- I don't want
this to get in the way of folks putting time and energy into mapping these
areas. It's probably better to let the discussion play out first anyway.

Martijn

Martijn van Exel
skype: mvexel

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Eric Ladner <eric.ladner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM Torsten Karzig <Torsten.Karzig at web.de>
> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging
>> what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we
>> actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction.
>> Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of land
>> managed for forestry. On top of this we of cause still have administrative
>> boundaries.
>>
>> For me applying this to National Forests would mean:
>>
>> Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire "National Forest".
>> Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for
>> "forestry". This does not apply to most parts of the National forests in
>> Southern California that I have seen. Although these areas are "managed" in
>> the sense that someone administrates it (hence the administrative boundary)
>> most parts of these National Forest are largely left alone and the
>> possibility to collect deadwood does in my opinion not qualify as forestry.
>> Finally, any larger regions that are covered with trees should be tagged as
>> natural=wood. Other landcovers (scrub,water) can also be tagged as
>> appropriate.
>>
>> The great advantage of the above tagging scheme is in my opinion that it
>> is very easy to follow for the mapper on the ground. Knowing whether I am
>> allowed to collect deadwood or not in a particular area is not easy to
>> verify on the ground, and, in my opinion, not as important as defining
>> landcovers or obvious landuses. Moreover, it is very confusing for someone
>> that uses the map if there is a large green region marked as landuse=forest
>> and on the ground there is no forestry, or obvious management, or trees.
>>
>> Torsten
>>
>>
> Agree..
>
> Not every square inch of a National Forest has (or will have) trees on
> it.  There are grasslands, mountains, lakes.
>
> Plus, the stated goal of the USFS isn't solely to grow trees in a national
> forest. Land management of these areas focuses on conservation, timber
> harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and
> recreation.  So it's not all about the "forest".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150818/bcc8dd90/attachment.html>