[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[stevea]

John Firebaugh writes:
>The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged 
>landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily 
>managed for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not 
>true for *any* of the National Forests. Here are some examples of 
>areas within National Forests that are not "primarily managed for 
>timber production".

OK, so say so where so.  (Tag in OSM accordingly).  If you wish to 
"subtract from the polygon" areas which you are absolutely certain no 
timber production is allowed or possible, go for it.  I won't argue. 
Your list is a good start.

"Venturing to assert" is a good intention, but unfortunately it 
doesn't quite rise high enough to merit authoritative tagging in OSM. 
You might say something similar to me:  "Steve, tagging an entire 
USFS as landuse=forest means you KNOW the entirety of the forest to 
be a forest."  Well, I could be wrong in tagging the entirety of the 
forest as forest, but tagging a (whole) forest as "forest" is not the 
worst place to begin.  Really, that's where we are:  more-or-less at 
the beginning of tagging USFS polygons (with this discussion).  Let's 
get better at it.  That's the whole point of this discussion.  (I 
certainly recognize that).

Clicking on "Firewood & Other Products" on http://www.fs.fed.us 
yields this quotable quote:
"Collecting firewood or other products for personal use is available 
on many National Forests...".

So, for any given USFS, one might assume yes, one might assume no. 
It is possibly true that tagging the ENTIRE polygon as landuse=forest 
is "too much" if such firewood collection is only allowed on subsets 
of it.  Well, let's identify the subsets and tag those!  It is also 
possibly true that the entire polygon allows the collection of downed 
wood.  If so, keep the entire polygon tagged landuse=forest.  Or be 
prepared to argue the point (with me, and others) why not. 
Sub-areas?  Identify them!

>Even if you happen to believe that personal wood-gathering for 
>building a fire constitutes "timber production"

You know what?  It does.  Call it "patently ridiculous" if you want 
to be ridiculed by me, but that timber didn't appear like manna from 
heaven, it was produced by a forest.  I mean, really, how can you say 
otherwise?!

>there are many areas within National Forests where it's impossible 
>to do so. We should be tagging the areas within them, where timber 
>production is happening or at least possible, as landuse=forest, not 
>the entire political boundary.

Well, perhaps we have a happy compromise here.  Tell you what:  I'll 
start with the assumption that a forest should be tagged forest. 
(That's fair, and/or I'm listening to your alternative proposition). 
WHEN, WHERE and IF you know a particular area to be expressly NOT a 
forest, you are perfectly welcome to exclude that subset from said 
polygon.  I'm fine with that.

See, everybody:  this isn't easy or glib.  Let's not pretend it is 
and try to dismiss others with differing views using ham-handed 
tactics and harsh words.  I'm trying to be polite, upstanding, 
listening and open-hearted.  All of us trying to move forward on this 
topic should strive to do so, too.

SteveA
California