[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[stevea]

>On 08/19/2015 07:25 PM, stevea wrote:
>>  This isn't extreme.  Your backyard activity is consistent with the
>>  definition of a forest:  a land which is used for the production of
>  > wood/lumber/timber/firewood/pulp/et cetera.

Frederik, Frederik, Frederik...where do I begin?!

According to our wiki, which I DO follow when there is ambiguity or 
any question about what or whether I should map something, 
"landuse=forest is used to mark areas of land managed for forestry." 
As I have said here before (recently), this is EXACTLY, PRECISELY 
what a USFS national forest is.  If we change what tags mean in this 
project, we ought to have a better set of tags to use instead, and we 
are some distance from that.

>There is a problem with this definition; it is too broad.

I use the wiki definition I note above.  Consistently.  Even on 
polygons from local zoning/cadastral data marked as "Timber 
Production" in my county.  Whether there is active felling of trees 
or not.

The heart of the matter here is quite likely that the wiki definition 
for forest is overloaded:  OSM uses at least four different 
interpretations as the wiki outlines.  A solution to this problem 
might start with consensus-based re-definition, followed by 
consistent (worldwide) application of the new method, and rendering 
support to "see what we have done."  That's a lot of work we ought to 
get started doing.

>Even the
>seabed can fulfil some of these uses and we don't want to tag forests in
>the sea.

What the heck?  I know of no trees growing on the seabed!  (Although 
if there were an odd tree, say near the shoreline of the sea, I agree 
with a natural=tree node there -- but I don't think I've ever seen 
one).

>This definition of a forest is unsuitable for OSM and should
>not inform our tagging. (Luckily the Wiki, which is not always reliable
>on these issues, says: "A forest or woodland is an area covered by
>trees.", and not: "A forest is an area where you could potentially find
>something to light a fire with".)

Please don't twist what I say, conflate my meanings or read into what 
I have written, as it appears you have.  What I have done is apply 
the wiki definition ("area of land managed for forestry") to USFS 
polygons.  Stick to that and tell me I'm wrong, because I don't 
believe I am by that definition and application.

>There is also a problem with your interpretation of this
>already-unsuitable definition; you say that if land yields wood for any
>reason, it is "used in the production of wood". But I see a difference
>here between scavenging and agriculture. Just because there's wild
>berries somewhere, doesn't make the area an orchard. Just because you
>are legally allowed to pick up a branch that has fallen down from a
>tree, doesn't make this a lumber production facility.

It's way off the rails confusing scavenging and agriculture (oh, and 
the US Forest Service is actually a unit of the Department of 
Agriculture -- as in, those trees are GROWN to be HARVESTED by US, 
its owners).  I only used wood-gathering as proof that I use these 
lands as forest, ipso facto they should be tagged that way: 
landuse=forest.  Do you have a problem with that?  Let's stick to 
that, rather than seabeds and wild berries.

>Your definition is unsuitable, and your interpretation of your
>unsuitable definition is extreme, and it seems like you're fighting
>political battles/squabbles on the back of OSM. Whether something is a
>park or a national reserve should not be subject to your personal
>interpretation of your country's constitution.

Hey, the politics of this is real:  I am the owner of these lands 
(along with hundreds of millions of others), and I take offense that 
you call this "political" like I have a squabble to pick "on the back 
of OSM."  I don't:  I tag OSM with the reality of these public lands 
as they are defined in our wiki.  If you have a problem with that, 
perhaps you might update the wiki (but please, let's achieve 
consensus first).

"Your definition is unsuitable and your interpretation of your 
unsuitable definition is extreme..."  Wow, Frederik, those are pretty 
harsh words to a passionate volunteer like me (a "top 50 US 
contributor"), a speaker at our national conferences, present and 
active for most of the history of this project, responsible for over 
10,000 quality edits and somebody who is honestly and truly dedicated 
to doing the right thing.  Are you looking to alienate me from this 
project?  Because words like yours above go a long way towards doing 
exactly that.  Do you mean to do so?

>To me, a lot of your bordering-on-political-rant argument reads like
>what we get in other areas of the world where people fight over control
>of areas; and we tell them: We map the reality on the ground, not some
>wishful thinking. You might see yourself as the (co)-owner of everything
>controlled by the US government but if they decide to put up a law, a
>fence, or a guard keeping you from enjoying what is "yours" then please
>take it up with them and don't use OSM to map what you would like
>reality to be.

The reality on the ground is that USFS polygons are (unless otherwise 
shown to be true):

1)  "Areas of land managed for forestry."  (And are therefore worthy 
of the tag landuse=forest) and
2)  Worthy of the tags boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6, 
as these are administrative areas.

It is possible there are also different polygons within (and even 
without) USFS polygons which display greater detail of land cover 
(meadow, glacier, scree...) beside tree cover, although these are not 
widely used (yet).  Though if they were, and they rendered, we'd 
likely have less dissent.

Dang, what is so difficult about that?

Oh, and I AM the "US government."  Its workers are my employees. 
They work for me and hundreds of millions of other People who are 
also the US government.  We have not (nor will we soon) "put up a 
law, a fence, or a guard keeping from enjoying" (what is mine) -- 
THAT is (perhaps?) "wishful thinking."  (Sounds like a strange 
nightmare, actually).  The reality of it is that "this land is my 
land, this land is your land, the gates are open, the forest is 
productive and available to us for recreation and perhaps even the 
collection of firewood, should we so desire."  You are addressing the 
owner of these forests, while saying they should not be tagged 
landuse=forest, while landuse=forest means "areas of land managed for 
forestry."  Defend that.

This isn't rant, nor is it political, and I take offense at you 
saying so.  It is reasoned (relatively straightforward, simple, 
direct and persuasive, if I say so) argument for my position.  Yours? 
No wishful thinking of any sort is happening on my part and I don't 
understand why you would say this.

For a hopefully final time:  a USFS National Forest meets our current 
definition of landuse=forest.  That's all I'm saying.  Untag USFS 
polygons with landuse=forest at the peril of offending dedicated, 
passionate volunteers in this project.  If we have a problem with our 
wiki definitions and can't achieve consensus because of them, let's 
re-define what we mean by forest with better tags.  But don't say I'm 
not following what the wiki says like I am some gate-crashing yahoo 
bent on destruction:  I am not.  I am applying a definition properly 
as I try to do the right thing.  If there's a problem with that, 
let's fix it.

SteveA
California