I see that no-one has yet removed "landuse=forest" from
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1447414 again ...
I'm happy to do so (based on what I think is the general view in this
thread) - or does anyone violently object? Let me know if you do,
otherwise I'll remove the tag in a couple of
Oh, I should mention that the 'leisure=nature_reserve' is a concession to
current rendering practice. It is not inaccurate - all of the areas that I
tagged thus are in some way reserved for the processes of nature - but it
is imprecise. At such time as 'boundary=protected_area' becomes something
th
Mess is right. There is fundamental misunderstanding about the difference
between land ownership, land protection, land use and land cover.
I know what I decided to do in the reimport of New York state lands, but I
can't recommend it as a best practice, because every single tag that I
proposed had
As someone who has been around and around and around with this (landuse=forest
on National forests) for the better part of over seven years, I agree with
Steven, Paul, Elliott and Tod here. There has emerged a great deal of harmony
and consensus on this topic, but I agree we could and should sh
My take:
landuse=forest ==> Managed for wood, timber, lumber, paper production, etc.
natural=wood ==> Its got trees on it. May be managed for recreation, watershed,
endangered species, etc. or it may not managed at all.
My preferred take, not fully accepted by the wiki or tagging list but certai
My take:
landuse = forest ---> human managed
natural = wood ---> natural
I don't agree with designating USFS land as landuse=forest, unless we can
agree to abort the use of landuse=forest for tagging clumps of trees. We
need a best common practice here.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM Paul Norma
On 11/29/2016 7:14 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:
All I know of the area is"lots of parts of it do have lots of trees",
but does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National
Forest boundary, or should it be on the forested areas within? I
mention this here rather because I'm sure there a
> does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National Forest
boundary,
No. The boundary indicated USNF ownership, not landuse/landcover.
or should it be on the forested areas within?
Yes, that's a more appropriate use for that tag.
Similar situation exists in the George Washington Nat
I commented on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43314846 a few
days ago - does landuse=forest really make sense there?
For more details on the relation see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1447414#map=15/47.9626/-120.2074
and http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=1447414 .
9 matches
Mail list logo