[Talk-us] National Forest "nature_reserve"?

[Mike Thompson]

Thanks for everyone's input.

It seems that the consensus and current practice is to tag US National
Forests with
 boundary=protected_area

I have made the edit to Arapaho National Forest in Colorado.

Mike

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Elliott Plack <elliott.plack at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've also imported a fair bit of state forests, parks, wildlife areas and
> the like. From what I've read and interpreted, the boundary=protected_area
> schema with all of its related tags are the *new* way of doing it, and
> leisure=nature_reserve is the *old* way. Protected forests are literally
> reserved nature, but the leisure part is a bit misguided.
>
> I think that the folks that planned the boundary=protected_area tags would
> probably like to see the leisure=nature_reserve and the one for parks
> deprecated, but for now, we're seeing both tagging schemas used.
>
> Examples:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3681581
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3681587
>
> Best,
>
> Elliott
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:11 PM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>
>> I tag landuse=forest on National Forests.  If there are any included
>> wilderness areas, I tag them leisure=nature_reserve.  Sometimes these
>> boundaries can be quite complex via multipolygons, but I try to keep
>> it as simple as this, and I seldom get people arguing with these
>> tagging conventions.
>>
>> SteveA
>> California
>> (after tagging a good many National Forests and their included
>> Wildernesses in California)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150603/0c9cbd93/attachment.html>