Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
The definitive characteristic of US National Forests is that they are administered/managed by the US National Forest Service.[5] Thus US National Forests are administrative areas. Areas where the National Forest Service has some jurisdiction and responsibility. However, National Forests are categorized by the US as IUCN Category VI protected areas (Managed Resource Protected Area) [2]. Therefore, tagging them as protected areas is appropriate (not withstanding the fact that not much in a National Forest seems protected based upon my visit to a section of the Roosevelt National Forest yesterday). The common meaning of forest is a large tract of land covered with trees and underbrush; woodland[1] However, many parts of US National Forests do not have trees, and either will never have trees, or will not have them for many decades, and therefore are not forested * Many ski resorts are within National Forests, e.g. [3]. Areas occupied by buildings, parking lots and most ski runs do not have trees and are not likely to for many years. * Areas above treeline do not have trees and will probably not have trees for centuries. * Meadows, prairies, lakes/reservoirs, areas of scree and mines[4] are all found within National Forests and no or few trees will exist in these areas Therefore significant parts of National Forests are not being used as a forest and tagging them as landuse=forest is not appropriate in my opinion. Mike [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forest [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest [3] http://www.skiloveland.com/ - note Forest Service Logo at the bottom of the page [4] http://www.mining-law-reform.info/california.htm [5] Definition: National Forest System land—all lands, waters, or interests therein administered by the Forest Service https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/251.51 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Joel Holdsworth writes: ...when the whole administrative area is clobbered with green. What isn't forest shouldn't be tagged landuse=forest, and what is should be. It is not obvious anything administrative (here) is clobbered with green. It seems semantics are conflated, or I don't understand the problem (around here, NW of Karlsruhe), or both. If some national forests allow no timber harvesting (even hikers not being allowed to collect downed wood) then OK, remove the landuse=forest tag. Or, better, draw new polygons where this IS allowed and tag THEM landuse=forest. If a whole USFS (unit, polygon...) allows foresting, leave the tag on. We have the ability to tag what we mean, we just don't always have perfect consensus or apply the consensus we do have correctly to existing map objects. I think we are getting there, and maybe even are largely there. We could benefit greatly by a (sooner) consensus on a landcover syntax and concomitant rendering that applied it, distinct from the Standard layer. That just makes sense as a potential (improvements welcome) path forward. Technically possible, right? Land cover is not land use (and vice versa). Land cover is not specified by the landuse=* tag. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Therefore, tagging them as protected areas is appropriate (not withstanding the fact that not much in a National Forest seems protected based upon my visit to a section of the Roosevelt National Forest yesterday). +1 agree with everything you say. Also, come help me map the land-cover! - I've been doing quite a bit over the past couple of week, but there's a lot to map, and I've only seen so much of it on the ground. Joel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Yeah I posted a question about this last week: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/44763/tagging-us-national-forests To me landuse=forest is pretty clearly incorrect. It should be boundary=protected_area,protect_class=6 and the rendering rules should be patched to make it appear similar to leisure=national_park. Joel On 16 August 2015 20:10:17 GMT-06:00, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Hi, The new rendering of forests broke cases where a lake is inside a forest and the lake is not mapped as an inner section of the surrounding forest polygon. I posted this issue in the carto issue tracker: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1754 But after some discussion I realized that this may be a side effect of a different problem, namely how we tag national forests. In the US, these seem to be tagged as landuse=forest which is only partly true: within a National Forest, many different land uses can occur, only one of them being forest. So should we just not tag National Forests as landuse=forest? Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465. The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore. Martijn van Exel Secretary, US Chapter OpenStreetMap http://openstreetmap.us/ http://osm.org/ skype: mvexel On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Torsten Karzig torsten.kar...@web.de wrote: I agree with Martijn and Paul. To not repeat some of the arguments I want to point out that there was a similar discussion on the mailing list two years ago: misuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010759.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010756.html I think there was no agreement reached back then so we just kept the status quo. ___ 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] Tagging National Forests
On Monday 17 August 2015, Martijn van Exel wrote: I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465. To find further occurances you can use: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/aZs You will also see there that many national forests are mapped as multiple separate areas each with tags and the same name - like http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2658152 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30268500 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30268493 It would be a good idea to consolidate those into one multipolygon relation so someone searching for a national forest for example will find the whole forest and not only the largest subarea. The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore. It will also encourage mapping of actual forested areas as well as other vegetation and natural features. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Folks, This whole discussion going back more than a year ago has been dominated by very European concepts of what is a forest. I live in the dry, high western United States, where forests are very different from those in Europe (not leafy!) but are no less forests. How would you tag the pinon-juniper forests all over the Southwest, where no trees are taller than 15 feet? Or the chapparal of Southern California or the Jashua Tree stands of the California desert or the Great Sage Plain with sage 10 feet tall? And, Christoph, the forests are divided into subunits because that's how they are administered and because many national forests are made up of physically separate subunits. They can be as much as 100 miles apart. For example, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest has five such units. If you want information or a permit, you have to go to the local subunit. So, no, they should not be combined into one multipolygon, because, in reality, they are not a single multipolygon. So, while mapping principles are important, so are the physical, natural and administrative realities of a place. Charlotte At 08:14 AM 8/17/2015, you wrote: On Monday 17 August 2015, Martijn van Exel wrote: I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465. To find further occurances you can use: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/aZs You will also see there that many national forests are mapped as multiple separate areas each with tags and the same name - like http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2658152 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30268500 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30268493 It would be a good idea to consolidate those into one multipolygon relation so someone searching for a national forest, for example, will find the whole forest and not only the largest subarea. The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore. It will also encourage mapping of actual forested areas as well as other vegetation and natural features. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.dehttp://www.imagico.de ___ Talk-us mailing list mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.orgTalk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
This whole discussion going back more than a year ago has been dominated by very European concepts of what is a forest. I think that's the problem. In europe (and for that matter the whole of OSM) forest == trees. Every square foot of a landuse=forest area should be covered in trees. Here in the US, there is a thing called a US Nation Forest which is an administrative area, which has a lot of trees in it, but also scrub, grass, rivers, bare rock etc. The main issue is that we need to separate the administrative border from the land-cover, so that land-cover drawing is not prevented. Making boundary=protected_area render similarly to the outline of leisure=natural_park would be a good starting point, and that should be a simple mod to make. Joel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
The issue, as I see it, is that the OSM landuse=forest means that all the land so designated is used for timber production. Thus the long discussions about natural=wood, landcover=trees, etc. In the case of the US National Forests, the boundaries are still tagged with boundary=national_park, boundary:type=protected_area, protect_class=6 and protection_title=National Forest which should be enough for a map renderer to decide to paint the area in a distinctive area. On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.com wrote: I see your point that it's not a natural forest, but national forests are important institutions as preserves, especially, in addition to their other uses (recreation, research). Having just returned from a camping vacation in the Southwest, I am especially aware that the national forests, as an institution, play an important role there. On most map systems, they are noted by their green color, and that is what most map users expect to see. They use the color to plan where to camp and where they can conduct certain activities (hunting, fishing). Shouldn't their special status be noted somehow? Charlotte smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
But, in the United States, forests are not always about timber production. You won't get any timber for building from a pinon-juniper forest. The trees are too small (though you will get great pinon nuts and mesquite charcoal). It would be a serious problem for OSM if we don't provide a way for renderers to indicate the national forests boundaries clearly and distinctly, including our own renderer (because that's what most people use, folks). Charlotte At 10:10 AM 8/17/2015, you wrote: The issue, as I see it, is that the OSM landuse=forest means that all the land so designated is used for timber production. Thus the long discussions about natural=wood, landcover=trees, etc. In the case of the US National Forests, the boundaries are still tagged with boundary=national_park, boundary:type=protected_area, protect_class=6 and protection_title=National Forest which should be enough for a map renderer to decide to paint the area in a distinctive area. On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Charlotte Wolter mailto:techl...@techlady.comtechl...@techlady.com wrote: I see your point that it's not a natural forest, but national forests are important institutions as preserves, especially, in addition to their other uses (recreation, research). Having just returned from a camping vacation in the Southwest, I am especially aware that the national forests, as an institution, play an important role there. On most map systems, they are noted by their green color, and that is what most map users expect to see. They use the color to plan where to camp and where they can conduct certain activities (hunting, fishing). Shouldn't their special status be noted somehow? Charlotte Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Fwd: Re: Tagging National Forests
I see your point that it's not a natural forest, but national forests are important institutions as preserves, especially, in addition to their other uses (recreation, research). Having just returned from a camping vacation in the Southwest, I am especially aware that the national forests, as an institution, play an important role there. On most map systems, they are noted by their green color, and that is what most map users expect to see. They use the color to plan where to camp and where they can conduct certain activities (hunting, fishing). Shouldn't their special status be noted somehow? Charlotte Delivered-To: techl...@techlady.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=eCEOmX8suKudjBMlR61qHaZNYr/EsywyHSNHe2AKEfM=; b=MOtHXwBMOqG/SePuPQ9Eok8Q3Z4xs0XfOsEg80dPI3efQytD0e1U8LXnhk7i0cR16t DKJokXU8yyxbOocP2VV3f+CKgtGlt+VNsbhyNTEPvBEW3nUL13m8FMHNDrWbo0PfAR5Y G44nH7wWfHgf9NyF70BYKMEdurFQ26gLfX7KBO5G73XNYCi4iKNk2sbuIcCznW6Xe0mc YoUEVoeLRo7tGwhezf21lWqU75f2r9ZC6BwVjLYM9Ke/MmSSCrVRsFH0sAngpcDV7GeB Ve6rNMYQGGirQJq9FxlEq+ZRSsNQ7XvTYk+N19HgLJ7BbQWqpCrtnAhuj7I2vRapfUIk Blzw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnAQZgH4yhHfvn7ssQ6x3Vuq4whMI98Fe2HAFu4H+n/4hR7H7kCZLneuOi47LdXZYKrD5h/ X-Received: by 10.50.164.167 with SMTP id yr7mr2018182igb.50.1439822716455; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.78.133 with SMTP id b5mr15967950igx.70.1439822715414; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Martijn van Exel mart...@openstreetmap.us Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:44:56 -0600 To: Torsten Karzig torsten.kar...@web.de Cc: OpenStreetMap US Talk talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests X-BeenThere: talk-us@openstreetmap.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 List-Id: OpenStreetMap USA talk-us.openstreetmap.org List-Unsubscribe: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/options/talk-us, mailto:talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/ List-Post: mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org List-Help: mailto:talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org?subject=help List-Subscribe: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us, mailto:talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org?subject=subscribe X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.106:25 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=XNO+SGRE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=CoGJZMXjC9ZqYjZMN9F/3A==:117 a=CRRwbcOFI+X/mpt5jVcafw==:17 a=ayC55rCo:8 a=0oj8HZZGiqAA:10 a=pGLkceIS:8 a=TZb1taSU:8 a=595fbENk:8 a=1XWaLZrs:8 a=lyYuGu4CHa5PaZGX25icmyaRxzw=:19 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=uRRa74qj2VoA:10 a=vbhU_ohP:8 a=khNlfbpK:8 a=qBZiHCFgwTCtDBHinFYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=P9JqVeWq6w4A:10 a=MOiCCvhP6pMA:10 a=-FEs8UIgK8oA:10 a=NWVoK91CQyQA:10 a=IFNigu-yOPMEfF2xcDIA:9 a=YLuhPL1mSLj6Vi-m:21 a=Oh4A9SA5_CyJWz607JUA:9 a=3CP7XzAW9HEA:10 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah:Â http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465. The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore. Martijn van Exel Secretary, US Chapter OpenStreetMap http://openstreetmap.us/http://openstreetmap.us/ http://osm.org/ skype: mvexel On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Torsten Karzig mailto:torsten.kar...@web.detorsten.kar...@web.de wrote: I agree with Martijn and Paul. To not repeat some of the arguments I want to point out that there was a similar discussion on the mailing list two years ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010759.htmlmisuse of the landuse=forest tag for national forests https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010756.html I think there was no agreement reached back then so we just kept the status quo. ___ Talk-us mailing list mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.orgTalk-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 Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
I am disappointed to see landuse=forest removed from the very quintessence of what our wiki defines as forest: our USDA's National Forests. True, our wiki page (forest) defines four distinct tagging approaches which use this tag, all of which can be assumed to be correct, even as they might conflict with each other. However, the wiki definition of forest is unambiguous: areas of land managed for forestry. This is PRECISELY, EXACTLY what a National Forest is. Just because any particular chunk of it is not ACTIVELY having trees felled doesn't mean it isn't a forest. It COULD have trees felled (because it is an area of land managed for forestry), so it IS a forest. Whenever I recreate at a National Forest, I (or anybody as a humble US Citizen or National) can pluck wood from the ground and use it to build a (safe) campfire, for example. (Provided other, seasonal, regulations don't prohibit this fire-building because of safety concerns). This is land being used as a forest, and I will tag it as such. The whole area, actually, because that is correct. I wish Martijn had not removed these tags in Utah, and I don't want to see this tag removed from National Forests I and others have so tagged in California. Sure, including the newer tags of boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6 is a good idea, because those tags are also correct. So is the tag landuse=forest. It does not appear that a consensus is reached about this, as Martijn (and what appear to be folks in the UK and Germany, largely) seem to agree to remove landuse=forest, but at least Charlotte and I believe it should remain. And, Charlotte's point about subunits not being combined is also correct: if name=* tags of the subunits are different, don't combine them into a single multipolygon (please). The new forest rendering appears to occur at a higher (later) CSS layer than other layers such as meadow (and as Martijn noticed, natural=water creating a lake inside of a forest). This causes some double-rendering to occur now where it didn't before. The punch through that happened with meadow (and lake) caused a visually pleasing rendering to occur that no longer does. In my opinion, this should also be addressed (fixed) with the new rendering of forest: code it so it allows other polygons superimposed on the forest (such as meadow and bodies of water) to punch through and not draw the little trees icons there. It worked before, it can work this way again. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
My removing the landuse tags from the Utah national forest objects is part of the process of achieving that consensus, is the way I see it. It's a simple change that could easily be reverted, and I think it helps the discussion to actually see the outcome of the change. Apologies for posting my last message using my openstreetmap.us address by the way, I manage to mess up my from: field from time to time. These are my own personal views and do not represent those of the US Chapter board - not that they would want to meddle in tagging discussions anyway. Martijn Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: I have seen lots of “bike shedding” on this and I am of the opinion that landuse=forest should be removed from the US national forest boundary relations. But I was unaware that a consensus had been achieved. If it has, perhaps the wiki page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data#National_Forest_Boundaries can be brought into conformance with that consensus. On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Martijn van Exel mart...@openstreetmap.us wrote: I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465. The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
I have seen lots of “bike shedding” on this and I am of the opinion that landuse=forest should be removed from the US national forest boundary relations. But I was unaware that a consensus had been achieved. If it has, perhaps the wiki page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data#National_Forest_Boundaries can be brought into conformance with that consensus. On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Martijn van Exel mart...@openstreetmap.us wrote: I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465. The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
I did the same to the Roosevelt National Forest a couple of weeks ago: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/40.6167/-105.3240 Hopefully we can patch the rendering rules to display boundary=protected_area Joel On 17/08/15 15:44, Martijn van Exel wrote: I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465. The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
It worked before, it can work this way again. It worked to some degree, but it was rather a road-block to adding more detail. It won't every be possible to produce a detailed image like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/49.1850/7.9723 ...when the whole administrative area is clobbered with green. Joel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
If we end up opting to maintain current landuse=forest tagging for national forests, then we may create a MapRoulette challenge to highlight all 'forest internal' way features and have folks convert them into inner members of the NF multipolygon. As I said before, I am just trying to ease the discussion along by removing the tag from a well-defined selection of national forests. I will personally reinstate them if we all agree that it's not the right thing to do. Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Joel Holdsworth j...@airwebreathe.org.uk wrote: It worked before, it can work this way again. It worked to some degree, but it was rather a road-block to adding more detail. It won't every be possible to produce a detailed image like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/49.1850/7.9723 ...when the whole administrative area is clobbered with green. Joel ___ 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] Tagging National Forests
* stevea stevea...@softworkers.com [150817 20:08]: I am disappointed to see landuse=forest removed from the very quintessence of what our wiki defines as forest: our USDA's National Forests. [..] [..] It does not appear that a consensus is reached about this, as Martijn (and what appear to be folks in the UK and Germany, largely) seem to agree to remove landuse=forest, but at least Charlotte and I believe it should remain. Assuming we keep landuse=forest for the National Forests, what would you suggest we use to tag the areas that are actually covered by trees? And how should we render these so they can be seen as different from areas without trees that happen to be part of a National Forest? Wolfgang ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Monday 17 August 2015, Charlotte Wolter wrote: And, Christoph, the forests are divided into subunits because that's how they are administered and because many national forests are made up of physically separate subunits. They can be as much as 100 miles apart. For example, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest has five such units. If you want information or a permit, you have to go to the local subunit. I am aware of this, however a national forest with a certain name is still one entity that is administered as such by the national forest service. So the national forest as a named feature with proper tags indicating a protected area, operator tag etc. should be one entity in OSM. There is nothing wrong with mapping the different subunits on their own, but not as a national forest (since they are only parts of a national forest). So, no, they should not be combined into one multipolygon, because, in reality, they are not a single multipolygon. So, while mapping principles are important, so are the physical, natural and administrative realities of a place. The term multipolygon might be confusing here - a multipolygon can have multiple separate areas. This is common for example for archipelagos: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3705990 but also for national forests in the US: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/335140 When you map it as such programs can better interpret the data like Nominatim where you get just one result representing the whole forest: www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Dixie%20National%20Forest instead of a whole bunch of features here: www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Apache-Sitgreaves%20National%20Forest -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Unfortunately the magnifying glass is hidden away someplace so my old microprint copy of the Oxford English Dictionary is hard to read. I see “An extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture.”, Or “A woodland district, usually belonging to the king, set apart for hunting wild beasts and game, etc.” Or “A wild uncultivated waste, a wilderness”. But I don’t see any inference that UK English implies forest is specifically associated with timber production or logging. And from everyday use in the US I know that forest does not imply timber production. For example there is little or no logging in the forests in the mountains of Southern California (in or out of the administrative boundaries of the US Forest Service). Yet the OSM wiki says landuse=forest is For areas with a high density of trees primarily grown for timber.” From postings on tagging lists, the timber production seems to be a continental European interpretation and appears to be part of our semantic issue. It seems to me that the “landuse=forest” tag should go away. For timber production it ought to be something like “landuse=timber” if it is being used for timber production. The “natural” tag has the implication that mankind has not interfered with the the ecosystem. An area may be scrub or grass covered now because of over harvesting of trees in prehistoric times (Easter Island comes to mind). Is that a “natural” thing or the result of a former human land use? Landcover strikes me as a much more manageable tag for describing what is on the ground to the average mapper. I see trees, grassland or scrub. I can tag that. It may not be obvious if it is or was at one time actively managed for timber, cattle or watershed so “landuse” and/or “natural” are harder for the citizen mapper to tag. For US National Forest boundaries, I’d like to see the “landuse=forest” go away because currently implies logging which also implies actually having trees which is often not the case in the US West and Southwest. If an area of a forest is actually used for timber production then it should be so tagged, but to make it clear that forest !== timber, the “landuse=forest” tag ought to be deprecated and replaced with a more specific term. My $0.02 On Aug 17, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: If we end up opting to maintain current landuse=forest tagging for national forests, then we may create a MapRoulette challenge to highlight all 'forest internal' way features and have folks convert them into inner members of the NF multipolygon. As I said before, I am just trying to ease the discussion along by removing the tag from a well-defined selection of national forests. I will personally reinstate them if we all agree that it's not the right thing to do. Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Joel Holdsworth j...@airwebreathe.org.uk wrote: It worked before, it can work this way again. It worked to some degree, but it was rather a road-block to adding more detail. It won't every be possible to produce a detailed image like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/49.1850/7.9723 ...when the whole administrative area is clobbered with green. Joel ___ 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 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
I've used natural=woods for areas formerly in agriculture that were not naturally growing in with trees. This seemed more appropriate than forest as they are not really being managed for harvest. I could go either way on the National Forest tagging issue. While technically they are managed as forests, they are certainly internally quite heterogenuous in terms of the landuse to the point where many areas are not actually being managed as tree growing areas. James On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 21:06 +0200, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: Assuming we keep landuse=forest for the National Forests, what would you suggest we use to tag the areas that are actually covered by trees? And how should we render these so they can be seen as different from areas without trees that happen to be part of a National Forest? Wolfgang ___ 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] Tagging National Forests
Hi everyone, Disclaimer - I do have a degree in forestry, but only loosely continue to follow the field. I would agree with the camp that says 'no' to landuse=forest broadly used for all National Forests. I think someone said 'because you can pick up sticks, etc. for campfires' but this is not true across all National Forests; here is what the USFS says about it: http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/special_products.shtml - basically it is up to the unit; so taking the example of Pike National Forest near me, they do require a permit and only allow fuelwood collection (and other harvesting, like Christmas trees) in designated areas: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/psicc/passes-permits/forestproducts/?cid=fsm9_032545 - also get more restrictive when you consider the 'wilderness' designations that are contained within Pike. In general, I suggest we use protected area and only mark designated areas where timber harvesting is allowed as landuse=forest. =Russ -Original Message- From: James Umbanhowar [mailto:jumba...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:25 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests I've used natural=woods for areas formerly in agriculture that were not naturally growing in with trees. This seemed more appropriate than forest as they are not really being managed for harvest. I could go either way on the National Forest tagging issue. While technically they are managed as forests, they are certainly internally quite heterogenuous in terms of the landuse to the point where many areas are not actually being managed as tree growing areas. James On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 21:06 +0200, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: Assuming we keep landuse=forest for the National Forests, what would you suggest we use to tag the areas that are actually covered by trees? And how should we render these so they can be seen as different from areas without trees that happen to be part of a National Forest? Wolfgang ___ 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: No. Unfortunately, all that a data consumer can gather from landuse=forest or natural=wood is that there are trees there. Data consumers should be able to determine how much land is set aside for harvest with landuse=forest. Besides knowing how much land is used for wood harvest, it is useful information to know when calculating carbon offsets, and as Charlotte said, campers and hikers look for green areas to explore. -- @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] Tagging National Forests
Apologies for length. Tod Fitch writes: ...there is little or no logging in the forests in the mountains of Southern California (in or out of the administrative boundaries of the US Forest Service). I'm not sure you know this to be true: Cleveland National Forest is a big place, publicly owned, and as I make a campfire with downed wood, it is a forest. Its owner (We, the People of the USA) call it a forest, where wood is or can be harvested. This overlaps with our wiki definition. Wood is harvested in our national forests, I think it is safe to say every day. Me using our wood because it is safe to gather it for a fire at our camp is not the same as clear-cutting, it is true, but both are on of a spectrum of owner using a forest to harvest wood. Yet the OSM wiki says landuse=forest is For areas with a high density of trees primarily grown for timber. From postings on tagging lists, the timber production seems to be a continental European interpretation and appears to be part of our semantic issue. Timber production happens in national forests. No contradiction, consistent with USFS polygon tagging of landuse=forest. It seems to me that the landuse=forest tag should go away. For timber production it ought to be something like landuse=timber if it is being used for timber production. The natural tag has the implication that mankind has not interfered with the the ecosystem. An area may be scrub or grass covered now because of over harvesting of trees in prehistoric times (Easter Island comes to mind). Is that a natural thing or the result of a former human land use? It is as messy as human history has shaped our planet so it is what we have. We utter tags that mean certain things, we strive to do so. We write wiki pages and have conversations about what we mean. We should. Landcover strikes me as a much more manageable tag for describing what is on the ground to the average mapper. I see trees, grassland or scrub. I can tag that. It may not be obvious if it is or was at one time actively managed for timber, cattle or watershed so landuse and/or natural are harder for the citizen mapper to tag. I have hope for a landcover tag to become useful. It seems one of many good places for these conversations to continue. Free-form tagging can build a beautiful syntax if we are precise. Consensus here appears difficult but possible. For US National Forest boundaries, I'd like to see the landuse=forest go away because currently implies logging which also implies actually having trees which is often not the case in the US West and Southwest. If an area of a forest is actually used for timber production then it should be so tagged, but to make it clear that forest !== timber, the landuse=forest tag ought to be deprecated and replaced with a more specific term. These are areas which ARE logged (by the casual citizen who builds a campfire, an allowed purpose in my/our forest) so it is a forest. The implication of logging is muddying, and besides, me picking up deadwood in an area owned by the People of the USA and building a campfire with it IS logging, in a sense. A gentle one, yes, but logging a forest, yes, too. It does make sense for a map to show me where I might do this. This is what is meant by a forest, USFSs happen to be more publicly owned than a private forest with active logging -- both are forests by our wiki definition. Seeing this accurately is what a map is supposed to do. At least when we are precise when we say what we mean by forest. Seems we used to do that OK around here. Then again, maybe others notice that some do things differently. There are many ways the whole world can and does get along. Deprecating landuse=forest seems overly harsh; there are a number of meanings with this, some held by many to be a firmly etched semantic meaning something important and specific in the real world. Stomping on that is done only at the cost of a firm nose-thumbing of conscientious semantic rule-following attention-payers. It seems renderers are part of the consensus loop, even as we say don't code for the renderer. While recognizing there is a place for improvement, the renderer should be a place where we show what we mean. It may be correct to bring into more public view next versions of Standard rendering. Now we have Standard even as new CSS rules are installed: an active zone where Standard changes (some say improves). Version numbers as we share two (Standard and Newer) might make sense. The tag natural=wood means something, too: that these are more ancient and untouched trees, distinctly not harvested. In the real world, such a this has many names in many localities. It may be private or public ownership. It might be an area where people recreate (especially if public) and/or called a park or preserve or monument; sometimes just an unnamed parcel of trees (identified with this polygon).
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On 8/17/2015 10:10 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: The issue, as I see it, is that the OSM landuse=forest means that all the land so designated is used for timber production No. Unfortunately, all that a data consumer can gather from landuse=forest or natural=wood is that there are trees there. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
