The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily managed for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not true for *any* of the National Forests. Here are some examples of areas within National Forests that are not "primarily managed for timber production".
http://julialanning.com/files/2011/09/A-Plains-Rainier-RSZ.jpg This is a pumice field in the Plains of Abraham near Mt. St. Helens. It's not producing timber, and is not being managed to so as to do so any time soon. Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument lies within Gifford Pinchot National Forest. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/6507-ShastaLakeFull.jpg Shasta Lake, part of Shasta-Trinity National Forest, is the largest man-made lake in California -- 4,552,000 acre·ft at full pool, though significantly diminished as a result of the drought. None of the lake area is being primarily or even partially managed for timber production. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Mendenhall_Glacier_%28Winter%29.jpg It won't be possible to produce timber in the area currently covered by the Mendenhall Glacier, in Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area, a unit of the Tongass National Forest, until global warming significantly advances its melting. It may be sooner than we think, but not today! http://timberlinetrails.net/sitebuilder/Photos/Whitney/EastFaceRoute.jpg The East Face of Mt Whitney, in Inyo National Forest, features one of the world's classic rock climbs. The route lies entirely above 13,000 feet, and climbers on it will be hard pressed to find any substantial vegetation at all, let alone anything that could be used to produce timber -- or even firewood. Even if you happen to believe that personal wood-gathering for building a fire constitutes "timber production" -- and I, like Frederik, think that this definition is patently ridiculous -- there are many areas within National Forests where it's impossible to do so. We should be tagging the areas within them, where timber production is happening or at least possible, as landuse=forest, not the entire political boundary. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:57 AM, stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On 08/19/2015 07:25 PM, stevea wrote: >> >>> This isn't extreme. Your backyard activity is consistent with the >>> definition of a forest: a land which is used for the production of >>> >> > wood/lumber/timber/firewood/pulp/et cetera. >> > > Frederik, Frederik, Frederik...where do I begin?! > > According to our wiki, which I DO follow when there is ambiguity or any > question about what or whether I should map something, "landuse=forest is > used to mark areas of land managed for forestry." As I have said here > before (recently), this is EXACTLY, PRECISELY what a USFS national forest > is. If we change what tags mean in this project, we ought to have a better > set of tags to use instead, and we are some distance from that. > > There is a problem with this definition; it is too broad. >> > > I use the wiki definition I note above. Consistently. Even on polygons > from local zoning/cadastral data marked as "Timber Production" in my > county. Whether there is active felling of trees or not. > > The heart of the matter here is quite likely that the wiki definition for > forest is overloaded: OSM uses at least four different interpretations as > the wiki outlines. A solution to this problem might start with > consensus-based re-definition, followed by consistent (worldwide) > application of the new method, and rendering support to "see what we have > done." That's a lot of work we ought to get started doing. > > Even the >> seabed can fulfil some of these uses and we don't want to tag forests in >> the sea. >> > > What the heck? I know of no trees growing on the seabed! (Although if > there were an odd tree, say near the shoreline of the sea, I agree with a > natural=tree node there -- but I don't think I've ever seen one). > > This definition of a forest is unsuitable for OSM and should >> not inform our tagging. (Luckily the Wiki, which is not always reliable >> on these issues, says: "A forest or woodland is an area covered by >> trees.", and not: "A forest is an area where you could potentially find >> something to light a fire with".) >> > > Please don't twist what I say, conflate my meanings or read into what I > have written, as it appears you have. What I have done is apply the wiki > definition ("area of land managed for forestry") to USFS polygons. Stick > to that and tell me I'm wrong, because I don't believe I am by that > definition and application. > > There is also a problem with your interpretation of this >> already-unsuitable definition; you say that if land yields wood for any >> reason, it is "used in the production of wood". But I see a difference >> here between scavenging and agriculture. Just because there's wild >> berries somewhere, doesn't make the area an orchard. Just because you >> are legally allowed to pick up a branch that has fallen down from a >> tree, doesn't make this a lumber production facility. >> > > It's way off the rails confusing scavenging and agriculture (oh, and the > US Forest Service is actually a unit of the Department of Agriculture -- as > in, those trees are GROWN to be HARVESTED by US, its owners). I only used > wood-gathering as proof that I use these lands as forest, ipso facto they > should be tagged that way: landuse=forest. Do you have a problem with > that? Let's stick to that, rather than seabeds and wild berries. > > Your definition is unsuitable, and your interpretation of your >> unsuitable definition is extreme, and it seems like you're fighting >> political battles/squabbles on the back of OSM. Whether something is a >> park or a national reserve should not be subject to your personal >> interpretation of your country's constitution. >> > > Hey, the politics of this is real: I am the owner of these lands (along > with hundreds of millions of others), and I take offense that you call this > "political" like I have a squabble to pick "on the back of OSM." I don't: > I tag OSM with the reality of these public lands as they are defined in our > wiki. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you might update the wiki > (but please, let's achieve consensus first). > > "Your definition is unsuitable and your interpretation of your unsuitable > definition is extreme..." Wow, Frederik, those are pretty harsh words to a > passionate volunteer like me (a "top 50 US contributor"), a speaker at our > national conferences, present and active for most of the history of this > project, responsible for over 10,000 quality edits and somebody who is > honestly and truly dedicated to doing the right thing. Are you looking to > alienate me from this project? Because words like yours above go a long > way towards doing exactly that. Do you mean to do so? > > To me, a lot of your bordering-on-political-rant argument reads like >> what we get in other areas of the world where people fight over control >> of areas; and we tell them: We map the reality on the ground, not some >> wishful thinking. You might see yourself as the (co)-owner of everything >> controlled by the US government but if they decide to put up a law, a >> fence, or a guard keeping you from enjoying what is "yours" then please >> take it up with them and don't use OSM to map what you would like >> reality to be. >> > > The reality on the ground is that USFS polygons are (unless otherwise > shown to be true): > > 1) "Areas of land managed for forestry." (And are therefore worthy of > the tag landuse=forest) and > 2) Worthy of the tags boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6, as > these are administrative areas. > > It is possible there are also different polygons within (and even without) > USFS polygons which display greater detail of land cover (meadow, glacier, > scree...) beside tree cover, although these are not widely used (yet). > Though if they were, and they rendered, we'd likely have less dissent. > > Dang, what is so difficult about that? > > Oh, and I AM the "US government." Its workers are my employees. They work > for me and hundreds of millions of other People who are also the US > government. We have not (nor will we soon) "put up a law, a fence, or a > guard keeping from enjoying" (what is mine) -- THAT is (perhaps?) "wishful > thinking." (Sounds like a strange nightmare, actually). The reality of it > is that "this land is my land, this land is your land, the gates are open, > the forest is productive and available to us for recreation and perhaps > even the collection of firewood, should we so desire." You are addressing > the owner of these forests, while saying they should not be tagged > landuse=forest, while landuse=forest means "areas of land managed for > forestry." Defend that. > > This isn't rant, nor is it political, and I take offense at you saying > so. It is reasoned (relatively straightforward, simple, direct and > persuasive, if I say so) argument for my position. Yours? No wishful > thinking of any sort is happening on my part and I don't understand why you > would say this. > > For a hopefully final time: a USFS National Forest meets our current > definition of landuse=forest. That's all I'm saying. Untag USFS polygons > with landuse=forest at the peril of offending dedicated, passionate > volunteers in this project. If we have a problem with our wiki definitions > and can't achieve consensus because of them, let's re-define what we mean > by forest with better tags. But don't say I'm not following what the wiki > says like I am some gate-crashing yahoo bent on destruction: I am not. I > am applying a definition properly as I try to do the right thing. If > there's a problem with that, let's fix it. > > SteveA > 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