2013/5/12 stevea stevea...@softworkers.com
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.
Yes, basically the actual use of landuse=forest is: there are trees
(judging from how
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
On 12/mag/2013, at 14:04, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
So, I'd like to see a
landcover=
tag,
here it is http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover
;-)
cheers,
Martin___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
If you have an area that cannot grow trees, due to altitude, inadequate
groundwater, or having exposed rock rather than soil (as with many
mountaintops), then, in what sense is it a managed forest? I am not talking
about areas that are temporarily treeless due to the trees having been
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:
If you have an area that cannot grow trees, due to altitude, inadequate
groundwater, or having exposed rock rather than soil (as with many
mountaintops), then, in what sense is it a managed forest? I am not talking
2013/5/12 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
For administrative purposes and area is designated a National Forest. In
practice parts of the National Forest have no trees. Show nature=* make
sense if we want to show what occupies the land. National Forest boundaries
should be in OSM,
If you have an area that cannot grow trees, due to altitude,
inadequate groundwater, or having exposed rock rather than soil (as
with many mountaintops), then, in what sense is it a managed forest?
I am not talking about areas that are temporarily treeless due to
the trees having been
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
