[Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 05:15:09 UTC 2017

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Adam Franco <adamfranco at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin!
> So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave
> the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the *boundary=protected_area
> + leisure=nature_reserve* combo for the smaller US Forest Service-owned
> parcels.

That's what I did when I reimported the Adirondack and Catskill data. There
wasn't a clear consensus that the tagging was 'right' - but nobody really
complained after the job was done.

The tagging that I used is described in
In the Catskills, there was a second category of public land:

I believe that it will be important, if anyone does get around to using the
protected_area tagging, that protect_class and protection_object be
something reasonable; that's something that's likely to affect the
rendering. I'm not all that familiar with GMNF, so I don't know if there
are a range of protection classes in it the way there are in the New York
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170118/7e6be667/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list