Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

2016-11-29 Thread Kevin Kenny
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

Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

2016-11-29 Thread OSM Volunteer stevea
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

Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

2016-11-29 Thread Tod Fitch
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

Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

2016-11-29 Thread Elliott Plack
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

Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

2016-11-29 Thread Paul Norman
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

Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

2016-11-29 Thread Steven Johnson
> 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

[Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

2016-11-29 Thread Andy Townsend
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 .