[Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

Adam Franco adamfranco at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 02:07:57 UTC 2017

Thanks for those details, Kevin. The comparison is very helpful. The GMNF
seems to have only 3 classifications that I've been able to find:

   - Wilderness -- which should probably be protected_class=1b
   - National Recreation Area -- protected_class=5 (Wikipedia page
   notes the ICUN class)
   - everything else -- probably protected_class=6

Thanks again for the feedback!

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>

> 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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
> wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands
> In the Catskills, there was a second category of public land:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_
> Recreation_Areas
> 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
> forests.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170118/d9448541/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list