As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of land managed for forestry. On top of this we of cause still have administrative boundaries.
For me applying this to National Forests would mean: Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire "National Forest". Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for "forestry". This does not apply to most parts of the National forests in Southern California that I have seen. Although these areas are "managed" in the sense that someone administrates it (hence the administrative boundary) most parts of these National Forest are largely left alone and the possibility to collect deadwood does in my opinion not qualify as forestry. Finally, any larger regions that are covered with trees should be tagged as natural=wood. Other landcovers (scrub,water) can also be tagged as appropriate. The great advantage of the above tagging scheme is in my opinion that it is very easy to follow for the mapper on the ground. Knowing whether I am allowed to collect deadwood or not in a particular area is not easy to verify on the ground, and, in my opinion, not as important as defining landcovers or obvious landuses. Moreover, it is very confusing for someone that uses the map if there is a large green region marked as landuse=forest and on the ground there is no forestry, or obvious management, or trees. Torsten _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
