[Talk-us] Michigan Forest Land

[Max Erickson]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:20 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Complicating things, the state seems to have moved away from saying
>> much about the top level state forests. But I think they are probably
>> still the right thing for a general purpose map.
>
>
> Right. That's why I was talking about coalescing compartments that have the same management type and name. The table in my earlier message shows the number of compartments to be combined for each facility.

The management units in the data are subunits of the state forests
still. For instance, "Gwinn Forest Management Unit" is/was part of the
Escanaba River State Forest.

The question is which data is better to present to the average end
user. I guess if the state isn't using the state forest names anymore
it makes sense to have the management units in OSM. But then because
people know the older names, does it make sense to also have the state
forests?


Max