On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think you should imply that there is a "natural=forest" boundary > > logically separate from the National Forest's boundary. Assuming you're > > using USFS's shapefiles, there should be one thing in there: the boundary > of > > the national forest. If there are "holes in the forest" anywhere > (including > > directly on the external border), then they should be inner polygons of a > > multipolygon. > > There are two separate definitions of what the national forest is. On > http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5192654.pdf > there's the dark green line ("national forest boundary"), but not > everything inside it is light green fill ("national forest land"). > Both are in the shapefiles. > Thanks for the example. I would suggest using a border/boundary tag for the "national forest boundary" area and a landuse tag for the "national forest land". I don't think there are any globally accepted values for this particular usecase, though. The national park/forest situation in the US is pretty unique.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
