On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 3:41 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us
wrote:
> Sorry for the late entry to the discussion but I did have a little
> information to add here.
>
> Wilderness, at least at the federal level, enjoys a different protection from
> that of a national forest. There is to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Sorry for the late entry to the discussion but I did have a little information
to add here.
Wilderness, at least at the federal level, enjoys a different protection from
that of a national forest. There is to be no development or tree harvesting
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 8:40 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some
> designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in.
> For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer
> on the Los
On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:52 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some
> designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in.
> For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an
I agree that the current OpenStreetMap data is wrong.
For example, I grew up in the Klamath National Forest, and that area should
include the Marble Mountain wilderness, it’s shouldn’t be a hole in the
National Forest.
-Joseph
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:40 AM Tod Fitch wrote:
> If I am
If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some
designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. For
example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer on the
Los Padres National Forest [2].
This does not seem correct to me.
6 matches
Mail list logo
