[Talk-us] Paved Shoulder Tag for US Highways
Hello Everyone, The following link is a discussion I am having on the Development Forum on OSM. Rather then going into a long explanation, it was suggested that a solution can be found here, I have provided the direct link to the discussion. http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31206 Please respond to this request with a proper solution to this dilemma. I know that every bicycle rider in the USA will be very happy, if a solution can be found that everyone can agree on. Larry California RoadRunner ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_areas_of_the_United_States Keep in mind that BLM, National Forest and National Parks can all have *wilderness* areas that are have stricter limits than the wider reserve. National lands are rarely monolithic: neither landcover nor conservation status are likely to be constant over the entire relation or polygon. Resource extraction is a strong distinction, and it comes in shades of gray. Some areas are given over almost completely to extraction, others are reserved primarily for natural processes. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org Sorry I don’t follow this topic more closely but I would think with the mixed-used of national forests, it is best to use boundary=protected_area After reading the wiki page Russ linked to, this seems correct as one of the sub-types is Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources: Along with leisure=nature_preserve the national forests in question are already also tagged with boundary=protected_area So despite not liking the tag, I concur that this is reasonable given existing standards. So it sounds like just dropping leisure=nature_reserve fixes everything. pgpjwvOocCnG9.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
According to wikipedia National Forest is a classification of federal lands in the United States. National Forests are largely forest and woodland areas owned collectively by the American people through the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service, part of the United States Department of Agriculture. Land management of these areas focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. National Forests are categorized by the US as IUCN Category VI protected areas (Managed Resource Protected Area). Technically National Forests are protected areas. Leisure activities are allowed but also include commercial use of the resources. boundary=protected_area is more appropriate than leisure= Clifford On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org Sorry I don’t follow this topic more closely but I would think with the mixed-used of national forests, it is best to use boundary=protected_area After reading the wiki page Russ linked to, this seems correct as one of the sub-types is Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources: Along with leisure=nature_preserve the national forests in question are already also tagged with boundary=protected_area So despite not liking the tag, I concur that this is reasonable given existing standards. So it sounds like just dropping leisure=nature_reserve fixes everything. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: So it sounds like just dropping leisure=nature_reserve fixes everything. Greg, yes, that is the course of action I would recommend, and I should have been more explicit. Hopefully the community can come to some sort of agreement and then I, or anyone else for that matter, can make the edit. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
I tag landuse=forest on National Forests. If there are any included wilderness areas, I tag them leisure=nature_reserve. Sometimes these boundaries can be quite complex via multipolygons, but I try to keep it as simple as this, and I seldom get people arguing with these tagging conventions. SteveA California (after tagging a good many National Forests and their included Wildernesses in California) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
I've also imported a fair bit of state forests, parks, wildlife areas and the like. From what I've read and interpreted, the boundary=protected_area schema with all of its related tags are the *new* way of doing it, and leisure=nature_reserve is the *old* way. Protected forests are literally reserved nature, but the leisure part is a bit misguided. I think that the folks that planned the boundary=protected_area tags would probably like to see the leisure=nature_reserve and the one for parks deprecated, but for now, we're seeing both tagging schemas used. Examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3681581 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3681587 Best, Elliott On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:11 PM stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: I tag landuse=forest on National Forests. If there are any included wilderness areas, I tag them leisure=nature_reserve. Sometimes these boundaries can be quite complex via multipolygons, but I try to keep it as simple as this, and I seldom get people arguing with these tagging conventions. SteveA California (after tagging a good many National Forests and their included Wildernesses in 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
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
Hi Mike, Sorry I don’t follow this topic more closely but I would think with the mixed-used of national forests, it is best to use boundary=protected_area[1] but I know it has been discussed a bunch, so someone might have an even better answer. =Russ [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 3:45 PM To: Open Street Map Talk-US Subject: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve? Some US National Forests, such as the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado[1] are tagged leisure=nature_reserve is this correct? National Forests per say are not nature reserves. In most cases logging, grazing, fishing, hunting, shooting and off road vehicle use are allowed, hardly a nature_reserve. Roosevelt national Forest [2] does not have the leisure=nature_reserve tag, so at the very least we are probably being inconsistent. Mike [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/396026#map=9/39.9687/-105.8148 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/395767 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org writes: Sorry I don’t follow this topic more closely but I would think with the mixed-used of national forests, it is best to use boundary=protected_area[1] but I know it has been discussed a bunch, so someone might have an even better answer. I agree that leisure=nature_reserve is not right. I add that to land with primary tag landuse=conservation when human access is permitted subject to non-interference with the creatures, more or less. Really a US national forest is landuse=forest, except that the landuse=forest tag has the (not really right) connotation of trees as landcover. As for boundary=protected_area, while there are rules, this seems off as National Forests aren't really conservation land. Plus, I've always objected to putting semantics like that on the boundary when really it's a property of the polygon. But I know it's established practice pgpoWk8xor6_W.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
Some US National Forests, such as the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado[1] are tagged leisure=nature_reserve is this correct? National Forests per say are not nature reserves. In most cases logging, grazing, fishing, hunting, shooting and off road vehicle use are allowed, hardly a nature_reserve. Roosevelt national Forest [2] does not have the leisure=nature_reserve tag, so at the very least we are probably being inconsistent. Mike [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/396026#map=9/39.9687/-105.8148 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/395767 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest nature_reserve?
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org wrote: Hi Mike, Sorry I don’t follow this topic more closely but I would think with the mixed-used of national forests, it is best to use boundary=protected_area After reading the wiki page Russ linked to, this seems correct as one of the sub-types is Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources: Along with leisure=nature_preserve the national forests in question are already also tagged with boundary=protected_area On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Really a US national forest is landuse=forest, except that the landuse=forest tag has the (not really right) connotation of trees as landcover. Agreed with both points, and the national forests in question are also tagged landuse=forest. MIke ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
