On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM, John F. Eldredge <j...@jfeldredge.com>wrote:
> 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. Here is an excerpt from USFS website "Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide quality water and timber for the Nation's benefit. Over the years, the public has expanded the list of what they want from national forests and grasslands. Congress responded by directing the Forest Service to manage national forests for additional multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained yield of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, and recreation. Multiple use means managing resources under the best combination of uses to benefit the American people while ensuring the productivity of the land and protecting the quality of the environment." I think it safe to say that National Forests include areas with no trees. 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, but showing landcover is more interesting and it can be surveyed by mappers. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
