> does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National Forest boundary,
No. The boundary indicated USNF ownership, not landuse/landcover. or should it be on the forested areas within? Yes, that's a more appropriate use for that tag. Similar situation exists in the George Washington Natl Forest. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/38.8777/-78.4453 The boundaries here represent the Lee Ranger district (an internal USFS admin boundary) do not reflect surface ownership. I get why it's so ambiguous, but the boundaries should reflect ownership on the ground. Some efforts have made to import US Forest Service data: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data#National_Forest_Boundaries Still much to be done. If there is interest, we should take the discussion to the OSM-US slack, #imports channel. -- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. --*Ludwig Wittgenstein* On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I commented on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43314846 a few days > ago - does landuse=forest really make sense there? > > For more details on the relation see http://www.openstreetmap.org/r > elation/1447414#map=15/47.9626/-120.2074 and > http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=1447414 . > > All I know of the area is"lots of parts of it do have lots of trees", but > does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National Forest > boundary, or should it be on the forested areas within? I mention this > here rather because I'm sure there are people here familiar with the area, > which I'm not. > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > 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