[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Tod Fitch]

> On Aug 18, 2015, at 4:17 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> 
> Torsten Karzig wrote:
> 
>>> 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.

We are using British English here and timber appears to mean production of wood for building. See, for example, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/timber

You may define casual wood gathering of firewood a timber operation but I am pretty sure the forest service and others do not even in the US with a slightly different concept of the word.

I wouldn’t be too surprised if you could call someone at the Region 5 offices and get a list of the forests in California and Hawaii that currently have timber operations permitted. It would greatly surprise me if any forest in Region 5 is being totally or even largely managed for timber production.

In your back yard, at least some districts in the Los Padres National Forest allows wood cutting (dead and down, with permits, usually in the fall) and Christmas tree cutting (with permit, marked trees only). And they will thin small trees out areas for fire safety. But at least in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District there is no timber production now nor since, I believe, the early 1950s. The only large stands of commercial grade trees in the Los Padres are in the Mt. Pinos District and most of the high country where such trees are likely to grow are designated wilderness areas. So I am very sure that there is no “trees grown for use in building or carpentry” (i.e. timber operations, which in OSMese is landuse=forestry) in the Los Padres.

Disclosure: I have performed volunteer work for the Mt. Pinos Ranger District in the Los Padres for quite some time and while I most of my contacts are with recreation and fire staff I have had a number of discussions with people in resource management.

Cheers!