[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:32 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint.
>
>
> Not a problem.  Sorry if I sounded harsh while doing so.  Just a minor
> disagreement that we seem to have ironed out.
>
No problem, glad we have it worked out.

>
>
> I strongly believe (and have asserted here many times) that because my
> national forests allow me to collect downed wood and start a campfire (not
> always, but enough of the time that I consider this a generally true fact
> in our national forests) that “gathering of fallen branches for firewood”
> meets the definition of “forestry.”  Very, very small scale (individual
> human being!) forestry, though forestry nonetheless.  Importantly, I (and
> others) feel strongly that OSM should support this with clear rendering, so
> it can be seen where it is possible to do this.  As the song goes:  “This
> land is your land, this land is my land, from the redwood forests…”.
>
Ok, you are talking about gathering of fallen branches, not just cutting of
standing trees. In which case, why is my backyard, from which I gather
fallen branches for firewood, any different from a landuse perspective,
than a National Forest? What about a private campground, open to the paying
public, where they allow the gathering of fallen branches for firewood? I
don't understand how ownership should change how landuse is classified.

>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Well, “closer,” yes.  Close, I respectfully disagree.  We need a
> super-terrificly written (very clear) wiki page, we really ought to have at
> least a plan for how this will be rendered in mapnik (if not outright
> rendering already beginning) and we might have some serious biologists
> and/or botanists and/or forestry folks make thoughtful contributions to a
> highly-developed tagging scheme.  I don’t believe we are there yet.
>
I agree there is room for improvement.  BTW, this publication may be
useful: http://www.pbcgis.com/data_basics/anderson.pdf


>
> Again:  GOOD!  This is awesome discussion, and I want to declare my
> ridiculous enthusiasm for this project and how I see it continually
> progressing.
>
Yes! We are making progress!

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160510/613dd1ac/attachment-0001.html>