[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[stevea]

Torsten Karzig 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 [sic] (course) still have 
>>administrative boundaries.
>>
>>For me applying this to National Forests would mean:
>>
>>Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire "National Forest".

I agree with this approach and have said and done so many times: 
boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6 are appropriate tags on 
USFS (National Forest) polygons.  However, as mentioned, there are 
other appropriate tags in this schema which might ALSO be 
appropriate, too.  For example, many National Forests have included 
within them designated Wilderness area, then boundary=protected_area 
and protect_class=1b are appropriate.  While it may be true that in 
some places "6 and 1b overlap," where that is true it should be 
corrected to be one or the other (6 OR 1b OR whatever protect_class 
is appropriate).

>>Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly 
>>used for "forestry".

Now, slow down here.  It has been (and is, I argue) quite reasonable 
to tag National Forests landuse=forest, EXCEPT where it is 
SPECIFICALLY known that absolutely NO timber production is occurring 
anywhere within the polygon.  It is a tall order to know this to be 
true, and I again argue that even an administrative boundary called a 
forest SHOULD sensibly start with a tagging of landuse=forest, UNLESS 
you KNOW either the whole area or specific sub-areas to NOT allow 
timber production under any circumstances (and then it is OK to 
remove the landuse=forest tag).  Where are those specific sub-areas? 
Well, find out and map them.  Otherwise, leave alone the 
landuse=forest tag.

And listen up:  me collecting downed wood for a camp fire is 
darn-tootin' timber production, as this is my/our forest, and I use 
it as such.  So don't take away from me/us (or the map) a 
landuse=forest tag when I (or another owner) can do this, as it is 
flat out incorrect to remove landuse=forest when it is being used as 
a forest.  Even one person collecting firewood makes this so.  Don't 
like this?  Please defend your argument.  Our forests are forests, 
because we use the land this way.

>>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.

I wholeheartedly disagree:  this needs to be bolstered with more 
authority than simply this.  ("What you have seen" and "in your 
opinion").

>>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.

Mmmmm, be careful:  the natural=wood tag is for what are essentially 
primeval trees, never logged or only having been timber production 
long, long, long ago.  I think you are wishing this tag to be used to 
denote what is better stated using a landcover=* tag, something that 
remains still fuzzily-defined.  Please don't conflate natural=wood 
with what is better stated using a landcover=* tag.  This is subtle, 
but we need to establish a correct/best way to do this.

>>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.

Here, we disagree on numerous points:  the mapper on the ground 
cannot tell that collection of downed wood to make a campfire is or 
is not allowed, yet it may or may not be.  So, get that point right 
(with landuse=forest if so), as it is an important one.  It IS 
important to many users of the map, this one, Charlotte and others 
here have said so.  You want to define landcovers?  Fine, define 
them.  Leave the landuse=forest tag alone where it is true and you 
cannot verify otherwise.  If you can verify otherwise, do so with 
exact polygons with appropriate tags.

>>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.

No, it is not confusing to me.  There are large segments of National 
Forest so tagged in Nevada, for example, which (by my personal 
experience) have no trees, but have deadwood (tumbleweeds and other 
downed wood blown by the wind...) available for me to make a 
campfire.  BECAUSE this is a National Forest, and BECAUSE this area 
is properly tagged as landuse=forest, I CAN USE THIS LAND AS A FOREST 
and collect the downed wood and make a fire.  This is important, and 
not just to me, and even if this confuses you because you "see green 
on the map but there are no trees" does not mean it is incorrect.  It 
IS correct tagging, land USE tagging.  It seems you need to "unlearn" 
what you see on the map when you see how landuse=forest is rendered 
as green.  It does NOT mean "trees are here."  It DOES mean "this 
area of land is used as a forest."  Adjust your eyeballs accordingly, 
please.

Brian May writes:
>Been following the thread and want to say Torsten sums up the issue very well.

Mmm, not really.

>Its an issue of administrative boundary + landcover + land use. And 
>its going to get complicated to properly model land use and 
>landcover. Relations using multi-polygons may be needed.

Yes.  This I agree with.  Although I might "order" them as 
administrative boundary, landuse and landcover as those seem to be 
the primary, secondary and tertiary "importances" (you may disagree, 
but at least if we have all three of these accurately tagged, 
arguments should be reduced or eliminated).

>Also I think its been mentioned the boundary should be tagged as 
>boundary=protected_area which handles the overall mission of 
>national forests is to conserve our forests. However, the issue 
>comes up that there are different levels of conservation ranging 
>from untouched wilderness to "actively managed" areas, e.g. 
>sustainable forestry, so a blanket boundary=protected_area may not 
>be appropriate. Is there another tag that covers a more mixed bag? 
>Is a new tag needed?

Careful, Brian:  the mission of our National Forests includes their 
enjoyment for timber production by their owner, the People.  If 
conservation were "a (or the) primary mission" then you might argue 
that we tag National Forests with landuse=conservation.  But you 
shouldn't, I don't and we ought not to:  they are forests, not areas 
of conservation.  This is a knife-edge of an argument, I agree, as 
clear-cutting did occur in some of these areas but is not likely to 
in the future.  But they can still be logged, and so are 
landuse=forest.

SteveA
California