On Monday 17 August 2015, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > And, Christoph, the forests are divided into subunits > because that's how they are administered and because many national > forests are made up of physically separate subunits. They can be as > much as 100 miles apart. For example, the Apache-Sitgreaves National > Forest has five such units. If you want information or a permit, you > have to go to the local subunit.
I am aware of this, however a national forest with a certain name is still one entity that is administered as such by the national forest service. So the national forest as a named feature with proper tags indicating a protected area, operator tag etc. should be one entity in OSM. There is nothing wrong with mapping the different subunits on their own, but not as a national forest (since they are only parts of a national forest). > So, no, they should not be combined > into one multipolygon, because, in reality, they are not a single > multipolygon. So, while mapping principles are important, so are the > physical, natural and administrative realities of a place. The term multipolygon might be confusing here - a multipolygon can have multiple separate areas. This is common for example for archipelagos: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3705990 but also for national forests in the US: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/335140 When you map it as such programs can better interpret the data like Nominatim where you get just one result representing the whole forest: www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Dixie%20National%20Forest instead of a whole bunch of features here: www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Apache-Sitgreaves%20National%20Forest -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
