[Talk-us] meta question
Hi, I am doing some research and analysis on the talk-us mailing list (will share when not a complete mess) and was wondering who I can ask about access to some general stats. Specifically, people registered and usernames. I'll be aggregating data so nothing would be personally identifiable. Thanks, Alyssa. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] meta question
I won't give you usernames (e-mails in this case), but there are 331 people signed up for the talk-us mailing list. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, alyssa wright alyssapwri...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I am doing some research and analysis on the talk-us mailing list (will share when not a complete mess) and was wondering who I can ask about access to some general stats. Specifically, people registered and usernames. I'll be aggregating data so nothing would be personally identifiable. Thanks, Alyssa. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] meta question
Thanks Ian! Is there any way to get a breakdown of that by year, month or just generally since talk-us started in 2007. As for usernames...I'm mostly wondering about any information regarding gender distribution, if that's at all possible. Thanks, Alyssa. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I won't give you usernames (e-mails in this case), but there are 331 people signed up for the talk-us mailing list. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, alyssa wright alyssapwri...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I am doing some research and analysis on the talk-us mailing list (will share when not a complete mess) and was wondering who I can ask about access to some general stats. Specifically, people registered and usernames. I'll be aggregating data so nothing would be personally identifiable. Thanks, Alyssa. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
I am relatively new to the talk-us list and have a question concerning the landuse tags of national forests. Right now (at least in southern california) all national forests are landuse=forest which leads to large green areas on the map which look like they originate from a very old video game with giant pixels. The boundaries of the national forest often have nothing to do with the actual landuse=forest/natural=wood boundaries. I would therefore vote for deleting the landuse tag [and map it separately] leaving the national forests only as protected_areas. Before doing this change I would like to have your input/opinion on the topic. I know that this should actually not be a concern but does anybody know whether protected areas of level 6 (like national forests) are rendered? (if not this might be a reason for the initial landuse=forest tag, although this is clearly mapping for the renderer) One more thing: When I look at the definition of the OSM map features it seems that natural=wood seems to be a better tag. But this depends a bit on the interpretation whether landuse=forest is used for land that is primarily managed for timber production or for woodland that is in some way maintained by humans. Torsten ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] meta question
Hi Alyssa, You might want to think about distributing a survey to the list. The results would be self-selecting, of course, but it could provide you with more robust demographic data than is collected by the talk list system. I'll be interested to hear about your research at SOTM! On May 11, 2013 3:52 PM, alyssa wright alyssapwri...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Ian! Is there any way to get a breakdown of that by year, month or just generally since talk-us started in 2007. As for usernames...I'm mostly wondering about any information regarding gender distribution, if that's at all possible. Thanks, Alyssa. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I won't give you usernames (e-mails in this case), but there are 331 people signed up for the talk-us mailing list. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, alyssa wright alyssapwri...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I am doing some research and analysis on the talk-us mailing list (will share when not a complete mess) and was wondering who I can ask about access to some general stats. Specifically, people registered and usernames. I'll be aggregating data so nothing would be personally identifiable. Thanks, Alyssa. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
This can get pretty complicated, with the way USFS manages its land: they manage two boundarieslands that are owned by the USFS, and private lands they manage (e.g. game lands, conservation easements...). Each unit within a forest can have a different management plan (roadless, timber, wildland). This could lead OSM mappers to come to different interpretations of the various boundaries within a USFS unit and possibly lead to several large green areas of different shades, Commodore 64 Style. For example, a NPS unit will typically have 12 land use management categories, the important one being wilderness. It'd be pretty chaotic to try to tag a park boundary 12 different ways to encompass those land uses, not to mention ticking off any one trying to render a simple park boundary. I'd download the USFS boundaries geodatabase from their web site. No help on tagging, though. I suspect, for simplicity sake, OSMers would want a single tag for a contiguous USFS boundary. Personally, I'd like to see USFS (and BLM, NPS, etc) unit boundaries tagged as an administrative boundaries, which is, in fact, what they are, regardless of the land use status within that boundary. Might be a good idea to update the Wiki page on this topic and/or add a proposed new tag, or tag change. -Original Message- From: Torsten Karzig [mailto:torsten.kar...@web.de] Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:53 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests I am relatively new to the talk-us list and have a question concerning the landuse tags of national forests. Right now (at least in southern california) all national forests are landuse=forest which leads to large green areas on the map which look like they originate from a very old video game with giant pixels. The boundaries of the national forest often have nothing to do with the actual landuse=forest/natural=wood boundaries. I would therefore vote for deleting the landuse tag [and map it separately] leaving the national forests only as protected_areas. Before doing this change I would like to have your input/opinion on the topic. I know that this should actually not be a concern but does anybody know whether protected areas of level 6 (like national forests) are rendered? (if not this might be a reason for the initial landuse=forest tag, although this is clearly mapping for the renderer) One more thing: When I look at the definition of the OSM map features it seems that natural=wood seems to be a better tag. But this depends a bit on the interpretation whether landuse=forest is used for land that is primarily managed for timber production or for woodland that is in some way maintained by humans. Torsten ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
Hello Torsten: Please see our wiki page regarding these data (USFS imported data for national forests and wildernesses) at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data. Please see our wiki pages at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood regarding the differences between forest (actively managed forests where timber harvesting can and does take place, whether publicly or privately owned), and wood, which is for ancient or virgin woodland, with no forestry use. Quite arguably, all national forests ARE landuse=forest: in my mind there is no clearer example of a landuse tag as forest matching so well as exactly those of the boundaries of national forests. Also arguably, there are NO natural=wood polygons which would be appropriate in any national forest, as they are managed forests, not ancient or virgin woodland, with no forestry use. These two categories are mutually exclusive. The protected_area tags are correct, on that we seem to agree. However, if there are other natural areas in such protected areas as national forests, which are correctly tagged landuse=forest (managed timber) which have other natural coverings, such as scrub or heath, you are perfectly welcome to add a natural=scrub tag (or whatever) where those natural landcovers are found, as appropriate. Landcover is an emerging edge of OSM semantics, and there is much discussion about it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover is a good introduction, and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover discusses a major proposal now under way. Also, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Protected_Area_Rendering shows that protected_area=6 (as national forests are/should be tagged) has specific polyline and dashing rules, but this (these rules) is/are proposals for the Kosmos renderer only. No, natural=wood is not a better tag (whether in replacement or as an additional tag) to the tag of landuse=forest for national forests. There is no interpretation here: as described above, natural=wood and landuse=forest are quite mutually exclusive. SteveA California (who recently uploaded the southern California national forests, with careful tagging and discussion both here and in the first wiki page mentioned above before doing so) I am relatively new to the talk-us list and have a question concerning the landuse tags of national forests. Right now (at least in southern california) all national forests are landuse=forest which leads to large green areas on the map which look like they originate from a very old video game with giant pixels. The boundaries of the national forest often have nothing to do with the actual landuse=forest/natural=wood boundaries. I would therefore vote for deleting the landuse tag [and map it separately] leaving the national forests only as protected_areas. Before doing this change I would like to have your input/opinion on the topic. I know that this should actually not be a concern but does anybody know whether protected areas of level 6 (like national forests) are rendered? (if not this might be a reason for the initial landuse=forest tag, although this is clearly mapping for the renderer) One more thing: When I look at the definition of the OSM map features it seems that natural=wood seems to be a better tag. But this depends a bit on the interpretation whether landuse=forest is used for land that is primarily managed for timber production or for woodland that is in some way maintained by humans. Torsten ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
Hello SteveA, Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate you work for updating the national forests in southern California. Before posting I already read the wiki pages you mentioned. For me it seemed that there is still some dispute about how the tag landuse=forest is used and there exist different approaches. What I only learned now is that US National Forests are indeed used for timber harvesting (and not only for forest protection) so I now fully agree that the natural=wood tag is inappropriate. However, one thing which I still find strange is to tag large areas of scrub (bushes without any trees) as landuse=forest. Somebody using the map may be surprised when not finding any trees in a region mapped as a forest. [The parts of the Angeles National forest that I have seen so far are dominated by scrub] For me using the landuse=forest tag in this case seems to contradict the fact that landuse=forest is supposed to describe woodland. In an ideally detailed map those parts would be marked as scrub. For me it seems that what to do in the current situation is a question of what to take as a default. Your point of view is marking everything as landuse=forest and manually excluding scrub land. I thought it would be better to only mark parts as forest which clearly are woodland. Since your point of view seems to be the standard practice right now, I agree that it is probably the best to stick to it (although this means, imho, ignoring the conflicting definitions of scrub and forest). Buy the way, what is rendered when a region is landuse=forest and natural=scrub at the same time? Thanks Torsten On 05/11/2013 01:59 PM, stevea wrote: Hello Torsten: Please see our wiki page regarding these data (USFS imported data for national forests and wildernesses) at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data. Please see our wiki pages at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood regarding the differences between forest (actively managed forests where timber harvesting can and does take place, whether publicly or privately owned), and wood, which is for ancient or virgin woodland, with no forestry use. Quite arguably, all national forests ARE landuse=forest: in my mind there is no clearer example of a landuse tag as forest matching so well as exactly those of the boundaries of national forests. Also arguably, there are NO natural=wood polygons which would be appropriate in any national forest, as they are managed forests, not ancient or virgin woodland, with no forestry use. These two categories are mutually exclusive. The protected_area tags are correct, on that we seem to agree. However, if there are other natural areas in such protected areas as national forests, which are correctly tagged landuse=forest (managed timber) which have other natural coverings, such as scrub or heath, you are perfectly welcome to add a natural=scrub tag (or whatever) where those natural landcovers are found, as appropriate. Landcover is an emerging edge of OSM semantics, and there is much discussion about it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover is a good introduction, and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover discusses a major proposal now under way. Also, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Protected_Area_Rendering shows that protected_area=6 (as national forests are/should be tagged) has specific polyline and dashing rules, but this (these rules) is/are proposals for the Kosmos renderer only. No, natural=wood is not a better tag (whether in replacement or as an additional tag) to the tag of landuse=forest for national forests. There is no interpretation here: as described above, natural=wood and landuse=forest are quite mutually exclusive. SteveA California (who recently uploaded the southern California national forests, with careful tagging and discussion both here and in the first wiki page mentioned above before doing so) I am relatively new to the talk-us list and have a question concerning the landuse tags of national forests. Right now (at least in southern california) all national forests are landuse=forest which leads to large green areas on the map which look like they originate from a very old video game with giant pixels. The boundaries of the national forest often have nothing to do with the actual landuse=forest/natural=wood boundaries. I would therefore vote for deleting the landuse tag [and map it separately] leaving the national forests only as protected_areas. Before doing this change I would like to have your input/opinion on the topic. I know that this should actually not be a concern but does anybody know whether protected areas of level 6 (like national forests) are rendered? (if not this might be a reason for the initial landuse=forest tag, although this is clearly mapping for the renderer) One more thing: When I look at the definition of the
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
Torsten Karzig torsten.kar...@web.de writes: a forest. [The parts of the Angeles National forest that I have seen so far are dominated by scrub] For me using the landuse=forest tag in this case seems to contradict the fact that landuse=forest is supposed to describe woodland. Not quite; landuse=forest is supposed to describe an area managed for forestry. If an entity owns a big tract, and the only real purpose is forestry where it works and the rest sits, it's not wrong to call the whole thing landuse=forest. The real bug is that there are three things going on boundaries landuse (purpose) landcover (natural=wood is an example, but there should be a tag for trees are growing separate from it being natural) pgp3TbiOfZFPJ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate you work for updating the national forests in southern California. Nice of you to say so. I did get a lot of positive feedback from posters to talk-us saying something similar. I have a lot of work to continue to do this with eastern, central and northern California, and that work is on hold for right now, but this is documented and I do intend to get to it. Before posting I already read the wiki pages you mentioned. For me it seemed that there is still some dispute about how the tag landuse=forest is used and there exist different approaches. What I only learned now is that US National Forests are indeed used for timber harvesting (and not only for forest protection) so I now fully agree that the natural=wood tag is inappropriate. I guessed as much, but wanted to make sure you had read our documentation wiki. However, US National Forests, while they certainly DO allow for timber harvesting, also allow for, say, scrub harvesting, if in fact it is scrub rather than trees which exists in the FOREST land surrounded by the boundary of landuse=forest. For example, I was recently camping at Bottcher's Gap Recreation Site in northern Los Padres National Forest and Lorenzo there (the camp host, similar a ranger, but more like he collects fees and keeps order, but without a gun and a badge like a full ranger) told me that if I wished to collect wood for a campfire, I was perfectly free to do that, after all, it is a national forest owned by the public, which includes me. While there certainly are a lot of trees in that area, scrub predominates. What Lorenzo meant is that I could collect wood from (downed) trees and branches as well as (dead and downed) scrub, too. In other words, a national forest is the boundaries inside of which forests, whether scrub or trees, is managed forest land. However, one thing which I still find strange is to tag large areas of scrub (bushes without any trees) as landuse=forest. Somebody using the map may be surprised when not finding any trees in a region mapped as a forest. [The parts of the Angeles National forest that I have seen so far are dominated by scrub] For me using the landuse=forest tag in this case seems to contradict the fact that landuse=forest is supposed to describe woodland. I am absolutely not surprised when I find no trees in a national forest. These are huge areas which unrealistically can be expected to be solid, 100% trees. Please don't confuse land cover with the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest. A national forest frequently does have dense tree cover, but its land cover may be desert-like sand, scrub, trees, or even barren rock, among other things (marsh, mud...). All of these types of land cover are found within the national forest and this is not a contradiction. In an ideally detailed map those parts would be marked as scrub. For me it seems that what to do in the current situation is a question of what to take as a default. Your point of view is marking everything as landuse=forest and manually excluding scrub land. I thought it would be better to only mark parts as forest which clearly are woodland. Since your point of view seems to be the standard practice right now, I agree that it is probably the best to stick to it (although this means, imho, ignoring the conflicting definitions of scrub and forest). What I mark with USFS-published forest and wilderness boundaries are just that. The (standard/mapnik) renderer makes these solid green, which you appear to be confusing with a visual semantic that means this is all trees which is most certainly is not. Rather, it means this is all national forest. Buy the way, what is rendered when a region is landuse=forest and natural=scrub at the same time? Scrub, I believe, but this is only what I think happens in mapnik. Other renderers may (and can, and maybe even should) do something different. Thanks You are welcome! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
SteveA, Alright, thanks for the clarification. Please don't confuse land cover with the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest. I would guess that I am not the only one who gets confused by this. In fact I would even say that there is probably not a unison agreement in the community to this definition of landuse=forest. In this sense a landcover tag would indeed make sense. If one would include this, a renderer could decide whether to show a political or physical map. Right now we are in some kind of confusing superposition. Torsten ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
Please don't confuse land cover with the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest. One more remark. Shouldn't the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest be defined by the boundary-, protected area-, and park:type=national_forest- tags? Moreover, how can one tag a physical forest (areas with trees present) inside the national forest? Torsten ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
If neither of the two tags being discussed (landuse=forest, natural=wood) are appropriate for tagging a generic area covered by trees (regardless if it is virgin, managed), it would be really helpful to have a tag that could be used for this (i.e. indicate what the *landcover* is). This information is useful when navigating the back country. While land use and land cover are not the same, they have been grouped together in other classification systems ( http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/anderson.pdf). I am confused by the landuse=forest definition being put forth here. Interpreting the tag in light of traditional land use/land cover classification systems, it implies that these areas would necessarily have trees, which contradicts the definition given. As pointed out earlier, parts of the U.S. National Forests are not treed, for example, parts that are above treeline. It is difficult to say that areas that not only don't have trees, but can't have trees are being managed for timber harvesting. The Wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest) is not clear on this point, and in fact outlines three different approaches. Approach 2 3 suggests that landuse=forest implies the presence of trees. I also want to point out that some parts of the US National Forests are not managed for timber harvesting. Areas that are protected under the Wilderness Act occur within National Forests, and timber harvesting is not allowed. Mike . On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Torsten Karzig torsten.kar...@web.dewrote: Please don't confuse land cover with the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest. One more remark. Shouldn't the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest be defined by the boundary-, protected area-, and park:type=national_forest- tags? Moreover, how can one tag a physical forest (areas with trees present) inside the national forest? Torsten __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
From: stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests Hello Torsten: Please see our wiki pages at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood regarding the differences between forest (actively managed forests where timber harvesting can and does take place, whether publicly or privately owned), and wood, which is for ancient or virgin woodland, with no forestry use. This is one of multiple definitions used, and the one you quoted is not one common in North America. See http://wiki.osm.org/Tag:landuse%3Dforest#Notes for three different approaches. I can say confidently that the ancient or virgin woodland definition for natural=wood is not commonly used in OSM in North America for the simple reason that there is almost no woodland meeting that definition. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
Please don't confuse land cover with the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest. One more remark. Shouldn't the political/jurisdictional and geographical definition of inside the boundaries of a national forest be defined by the boundary-, protected area-, and park:type=national_forest- tags? Moreover, how can one tag a physical forest (areas with trees present) inside the national forest? Boundary, yes. (As Greg Troxel pointed out as one of the three things going on here: boundaries, landuse and land cover). Protected area, yes. The park:type tag seems to be a more recent (circa 2009/2010) invention by Apo42, a California-based OSM volunteer who also maps in Austria. (Being somewhat local to one another, he and I have gone on hikes together and discuss OSM more than occasionally).I'll let Apo speak for himself, but I really like the park:type tag, so I use it extensively. It seems to be something he started with his CASIL-based California State Park uploads, but it is quite extensible to park:type=county_park, city_park, private_park (and more), so I continue to use that sort of syntax when it makes sense to do so. However, I also believe the park:type tag to not be widely used outside of California, nor is it well-documented on OSM's wiki pages (to the best of my knowledge). I do agree with Mike Thompson's statement: If neither of the two tags being discussed (landuse=forest, natural=wood) are appropriate for tagging a generic area covered by trees (regardless if it is virgin, managed), it would be really helpful to have a tag that could be used for this (i.e. indicate what the *landcover* is). This information is useful when navigating the back country. Yet, I continue to believe that a proper landcover=* tag is the right way to do this. Simultaneously, I think it proper that national forests have a landuse=forest tag, (in addition to proper boundary= and protected_area= tags) even though they MAY or MAY NOT be just trees. My reasoning: landuse=forest means a managed forest land, even if not exactly 100% of it is covered by trees. Such an area that had 50% of its trees cut down (it IS a managed forest!) would STILL be a managed forest, even though at least half of it is not now trees. What I'm really saying is I agree we could use better landcover tagging. I'm not alone here. Wilderness areas are WITHIN national forests and are designated with the leisure=nature_reserve tag. This was discussed with my email interaction with Troy Warburton of the USFS in Talk-us Digest, Vol 64, Issue 1. Here are the tags I use for National Forests within the jurisdiction of the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service: landuse=forest boundary=national_park boundary:type=protected_area protect_class=6 protection_title=National Forest ownership=national name=Name of Forest And here are the tags I use for Wilderness areas WITHIN National Forests: leisure=nature_reserve boundary=national_park boundary:type=protected_area protect_class=1b protection_title=Wilderness ownership=national name=Name of Wilderness Further answering Mike Thompson, I don't think it odd at all that parts of the U.S. National Forests are not treed, for example, parts that are above treeline. The parts that are still in the forest are still in the forest (which is what landuse=forest implies), even if they are above the treeline and don't have trees. Yes, it seems confusing, but only if you think landuse=forest implies all trees. It doesn't: it implies all managed forest, whether with or without trees. SteveA California___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
