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
harvested.
stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
> >>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
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
