Thanks for everyone's input. It seems that the consensus and current practice is to tag US National Forests with boundary=protected_area
I have made the edit to Arapaho National Forest in Colorado. Mike On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've also imported a fair bit of state forests, parks, wildlife areas and > the like. From what I've read and interpreted, the boundary=protected_area > schema with all of its related tags are the *new* way of doing it, and > leisure=nature_reserve is the *old* way. Protected forests are literally > reserved nature, but the leisure part is a bit misguided. > > I think that the folks that planned the boundary=protected_area tags would > probably like to see the leisure=nature_reserve and the one for parks > deprecated, but for now, we're seeing both tagging schemas used. > > Examples: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3681581 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3681587 > > Best, > > Elliott > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:11 PM stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > >> I tag landuse=forest on National Forests. If there are any included >> wilderness areas, I tag them leisure=nature_reserve. Sometimes these >> boundaries can be quite complex via multipolygons, but I try to keep >> it as simple as this, and I seldom get people arguing with these >> tagging conventions. >> >> SteveA >> California >> (after tagging a good many National Forests and their included >> Wildernesses in California) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
