[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[John Firebaugh]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:22 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

It wouldn't be correct to exclude areas where no timber production is
allowed or possible from the multipolygon indicating the political
boundaries of a National Forest. That would mark such areas as not included
inside the boundaries, when in fact they are included. There should be (at
least) two separate entities in the database.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150820/76e28cf2/attachment.html>