> Therefore,
> tagging them as protected areas is appropriate (not withstanding the
> fact that not much in a National Forest seems protected based upon my
> visit to a section of the Roosevelt National Forest yesterday).
+1 agree with everything you say.
Also, come help me map the land-cover! -
The definitive characteristic of US "National Forests" is that they are
administered/managed by the US National Forest Service.[5] Thus US
"National Forests" are administrative areas. Areas where the National
Forest Service has some jurisdiction and responsibility. However, "National
Forests are ca
Joel Holdsworth writes:
...when the whole administrative area is clobbered with green.
What isn't forest shouldn't be tagged landuse=forest, and what is
should be. It is not obvious anything administrative (here) is
"clobbered with green." It seems semantics are conflated, or I don't
under
Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
Assuming we keep landuse=forest for the National Forests, what would
you suggest we use to tag the areas that are actually covered by trees?
And how should we render these so they can be seen as different from
areas without trees that happen to be part of a National Forest?
Apologies for length.
Tod Fitch writes:
...there is little or no logging in the forests in the mountains of
Southern California (in or out of the administrative boundaries of
the US Forest Service).
I'm not sure you know this to be true: Cleveland National Forest is
a big place, publicly ow
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> No. Unfortunately, all that a data consumer can gather from landuse=forest
> or natural=wood is that there are trees there.
Data consumers should be able to determine how much land is set aside for
harvest with landuse=forest. Besides knowin
Dave,
I'm still getting a "File not found." when attempting to download the
latest. I verified it was just me.
Clifford
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> These are based off of Lambertus's work here:
>
> http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl
>
> If you have questions or co
On 8/17/2015 10:10 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
The issue, as I see it, is that the OSM landuse=forest means that all
the land so designated is used for timber production
No. Unfortunately, all that a data consumer can gather from
landuse=forest or natural=wood is that there are trees there.
_
Hi everyone,
Disclaimer - I do have a degree in forestry, but only loosely continue to
follow the field. I would agree with the camp that says 'no' to landuse=forest
broadly used for all National Forests. I think someone said 'because you can
pick up sticks, etc. for campfires' but this is no
Unfortunately the magnifying glass is hidden away someplace so my old
microprint copy of the Oxford English Dictionary is hard to read. I see “An
extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes
intermingled with pasture.”, Or “A woodland district, usually belonging to the
I've used natural=woods for areas formerly in agriculture that were not
naturally growing in with trees. This seemed more appropriate than
forest as they are not really being managed for harvest.
I could go either way on the National Forest tagging issue. While
technically they are managed as fo
* stevea [150817 20:08]:
> I am disappointed to see landuse=forest removed from the very
> quintessence of what our wiki defines as "forest:" our USDA's
> National Forests. [..]
> [..] It does
> not appear that a consensus is reached about this, as Martijn (and
> what appear to be folks in th
If we end up opting to maintain current landuse=forest tagging for national
forests, then we may create a MapRoulette challenge to highlight all
'forest internal' way features and have folks convert them into inner
members of the NF multipolygon.
As I said before, I am just trying to ease the disc
> It worked before, it can work this way again.
It worked to some degree, but it was rather a road-block to adding more
detail. It won't every be possible to produce a detailed image like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/49.1850/7.9723
...when the whole administrative area is clobbered
On Monday 17 August 2015, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
> And, Christoph, the forests are divided into subunits
> because that's how they are administered and because many national
> forests are made up of physically separate subunits. They can be as
> much as 100 miles apart. For example, the A
I am disappointed to see landuse=forest removed from the very
quintessence of what our wiki defines as "forest:" our USDA's
National Forests. True, our wiki page (forest) defines four distinct
tagging approaches which use this tag, all of which can be assumed to
be correct, even as they might
> This whole discussion going back more than a year ago has
> been dominated by very European concepts of what is a forest.
I think that's the problem.
In europe (and for that matter the whole of OSM) forest == trees. Every
square foot of a landuse=forest area should be covered in trees.
But, in the United States, forests are not always about
timber production. You won't get any timber for building from
a pinon-juniper forest. The trees are too small (though you will
get great pinon nuts and mesquite charcoal).
It would be a serious problem for OSM if we don't pro
Folks,
This whole discussion going back more than a year ago has
been dominated by very European concepts of what is a forest.
I live in the dry, high western United States, where forests are
very different from those in Europe (not leafy!) but are no less
forests. How would you tag the p
The issue, as I see it, is that the OSM landuse=forest means that all the land
so designated is used for timber production. Thus the long discussions about
natural=wood, landcover=trees, etc. In the case of the US National Forests, the
boundaries are still tagged with boundary=national_park,
bo
I see your point that it's not a "natural" forest, but national
forests are important institutions as preserves, especially, in addition
to their other uses (recreation, research).
Having just returned from a camping vacation in the Southwest,
I am especially aware that the nation
My removing the landuse tags from the Utah national forest objects is part
of the process of achieving that consensus, is the way I see it. It's a
simple change that could easily be reverted, and I think it helps the
discussion to actually see the outcome of the change. Apologies for posting
my las
I did the same to the Roosevelt National Forest a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/40.6167/-105.3240
Hopefully we can patch the rendering rules to display
boundary=protected_area
Joel
On 17/08/15 15:44, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I removed the landuse=forest from the na
I have seen lots of “bike shedding” on this and I am of the opinion that
landuse=forest should be removed from the US national forest boundary
relations. But I was unaware that a consensus had been achieved. If it has,
perhaps the wiki page at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Servic
On Monday 17 August 2015, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in
> Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465.
To find further occurances you can use:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/aZs
You will also see there that many national forest
I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465.
The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore.
Martijn van Exel
Secretary, US Chapter
OpenStreetMap
http://openstreetmap.us/
http://osm.org/
skype: mvexe
Yeah I posted a question about this last week:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/44763/tagging-us-national-forests
To me landuse=forest is pretty clearly incorrect. It should be
boundary=protected_area,protect_class=6 and the rendering rules should be
patched to make it appear similar t
I agree with Martijn and Paul. To not repeat some of the arguments I
want to point out that there was a similar discussion on the mailing
list two years ago:
misuse
of the landuse=forest tag for national forests
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-u
28 matches
Mail list logo
