[Talk-us] Fwd: Re: National Forest "nature_reserve"?

Charlotte Wolter techlady at techlady.com
Thu Jun 4 23:46:40 UTC 2015


         Interesting discussion. But, I have one question. After all
that, how do I code a national forest?


>Delivered-To: techlady at techlady.com
>Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:00:27 -0700
>To: Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com>,
>  Elliott Plack <elliott.plack at gmail.com>
>From: stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
>Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] National Forest "nature_reserve"?
>X-BeenThere: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
>List-Id: OpenStreetMap USA <talk-us.openstreetmap.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/options/talk-us>,
>  <mailto:talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/>
>List-Post: <mailto:talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>,
>  <mailto:talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org?subject=subscribe>
>X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=a8O+9CiF c=1 sm=1 tr=0 
>a=PSREjz6f8YchurqagD8nYg==:117 a=CRRwbcOFI+X/mpt5jVcafw==:17 
>a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=0oj8HZZGiqAA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 
>a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 
>a=Eor1iV6wAAAA:8 a=TZb1taSUAAAA:8 a=595fbENkAAAA:8 a=oTtuw1C_AAAA:8 
>a=lyYuGu4CHa5PaZGX25icmyaRxzw=:19 a=XAFQembCKUMA:10 
>a=P426Sab11vEsAsaxPfgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
>X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
>On not-so-long-ago USFS polygons, I tagged BOTH boundary=protected_area,
>leaving older landuse=forest and leisure=nature_reserve tags as they are.
>When protected Wilderness, on initial creation, my tagging "soups 
>up" to reflect
>that Wilderness/Forest distinction:  a protect_class 6 and a 1b are 
>Leaving existing tagging alone seems best unless it is clear a newer 
>method is a
>better method, as now extant semantics can be easily lost.
>OSM editors are good hearted, wishing to improve as we edit.  I go along with
>new tagging schema as I learn them and become smarter at using them, as we
>Wholesale removal of landuse or leisure tags?  Well, now slow down. 
>I don't think
>I heard THAT.  Something about old and new styles are out there, 
>yes, I agree.
>So, it is historical and it is emerging. I've been around in OSM to 
>see it happen
>and participate in it over the years.  Older tags getting deprecated 
>might speed up
>that very decay cycle (even as I hit Send).  Yet, leaving them 
>(abandoned railroads
>anybody? no scratch that as rhetorical) largely as tagged now 
>satisfies a current
>need.  Co-existence and peace through conversation, what do you know?!
>(Elliott Plack says we see both, I agree). We have a decent 
>early-21st-century fix
>on more than a few USFS boundaries with landuse and leisure tags.  I 
>see no reason
>to go out of our way to remove those tags (in favor of protect_class 
>tag) as they
>co-exist just fine.  Sure, protect_class is a fine way to mean a 
>certain semantic.
>Yet, too, "this is a forest boundary."  What we (the USA, OSM's 
>wiki...) say a forest
>is, after all.  That has a certain standing to remain as is:  these 
>are forests.  Well,
>as of 3.6 years ago, maybe. We get smarter as we get older, right?!
>Talk-us mailing list 
><mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>Talk-us at openstreetmap.org

Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
techlady at techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady

More information about the Talk-us mailing list