[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:15 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

>
> > On May 10, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that
> this tag is only appropriate where there is active commercial cultivation
> of trees for timber, pulp or similar products. Steve things otherwise, and
> I respect his point of view and appreciate how he is making his argument.
> However, if we go with a much less specific definition, such as anywhere
> someone can gather camp fire wood, then any land where there is a tree
> (with the exception of designated wilderness areas, etc) become
> landuse=forest.
>
> Mmm, hang on, Mike.  When you say “Steve thinks otherwise,” I disagree:
> this is exactly what I think.  Again, what we are agreeing to here is that
> landuse=forest means “active cultivation of trees for timber, pulp or
> similar products.”  (I leave out your choice of the word “commercial”
> because there is our local Demonstration State Forest which is
> publicly-owned and not all of its products are commercial, some being used
> for other state/public projects, for example.  But let’s not get lost in
> the weeds quibbling).
>
> You also mention a “much less specific definition, such as anywhere
> someone can gather campfire wood” equating to “any land where there is a
> tree” is also landuse=forest.  I’ll go real slow here.  In OSM, a USFS can
> correctly has boundary (multi)polygon(s) denoted with
> boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6.  We agree.  A USFS is not
> always 100% covered with trees, so delineating it with landuse=forest is
> not correct.  We agree.  (This didn’t used to be true, but OSM has
> evolved).  A USFS often, but not always, and not in every square meter of
> it, allows the collection of downed wood (where trees throw off downed
> wood) which can be collected by its owner (US citizens/nationals), and even
> (when safe) this wood can be used to build a fire.  We agree.
>
> These facts are different than your assertion of “anywhere someone can
> gather campfire wood.”  I can do that in my backyard, but I don’t tag it
> landuse=forest, nor should I.  These facts are different than “any land
> where there is a tree.”  “There is a tree” in my local city park, but I
> can’t cut it down and start a campfire, so I don’t tag landuse=forest
> there.  “There is a tree” (for sale) at the local plant nursery, but
> neither is that a commercial forest, so I shouldn’t tag it as one.
>
Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint.


"but I can't cut it down and start a campfire" - Are you excluding the
gathering of fallen branches for firewood from the definition of forestry?
That might be helpful: forestry = any place where, with the necessary
permits, one may cut down a tree for the some economic use (i.e. not just
to get rid of the tree).  I still think it is broad, but it excludes the
case where someone is just picking a few sticks off the ground to make a
campfire.


> > We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to
> represent:
> > * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
> natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree
> on.
>
> Yes, I agree, but a fair bit more evolution, description and full-fleshing
> out of semantics (and very likely, real rendering) must be established for
> the landcover tag before we get nothing but utter confusion using it.
>
Fleshing out is good, but I think the community is close.  landcover=trees
means anywhere there are standing plants which are classified as trees.
Fleshing out might include how dense the trees have to be, and whether
standing deadwood counts as "trees"

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160510/b1510990/attachment.html>