Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On 08/19/2015 07:25 PM, stevea wrote: This isn't extreme. Your backyard activity is consistent with the definition of a forest: a land which is used for the production of wood/lumber/timber/firewood/pulp/et cetera. Frederik, Frederik, Frederik...where do I begin?! According to our wiki, which I DO follow when there is ambiguity or any question about what or whether I should map something, landuse=forest is used to mark areas of land managed for forestry. As I have said here before (recently), this is EXACTLY, PRECISELY what a USFS national forest is. If we change what tags mean in this project, we ought to have a better set of tags to use instead, and we are some distance from that. There is a problem with this definition; it is too broad. I use the wiki definition I note above. Consistently. Even on polygons from local zoning/cadastral data marked as Timber Production in my county. Whether there is active felling of trees or not. The heart of the matter here is quite likely that the wiki definition for forest is overloaded: OSM uses at least four different interpretations as the wiki outlines. A solution to this problem might start with consensus-based re-definition, followed by consistent (worldwide) application of the new method, and rendering support to see what we have done. That's a lot of work we ought to get started doing. Even the seabed can fulfil some of these uses and we don't want to tag forests in the sea. What the heck? I know of no trees growing on the seabed! (Although if there were an odd tree, say near the shoreline of the sea, I agree with a natural=tree node there -- but I don't think I've ever seen one). This definition of a forest is unsuitable for OSM and should not inform our tagging. (Luckily the Wiki, which is not always reliable on these issues, says: A forest or woodland is an area covered by trees., and not: A forest is an area where you could potentially find something to light a fire with.) Please don't twist what I say, conflate my meanings or read into what I have written, as it appears you have. What I have done is apply the wiki definition (area of land managed for forestry) to USFS polygons. Stick to that and tell me I'm wrong, because I don't believe I am by that definition and application. There is also a problem with your interpretation of this already-unsuitable definition; you say that if land yields wood for any reason, it is used in the production of wood. But I see a difference here between scavenging and agriculture. Just because there's wild berries somewhere, doesn't make the area an orchard. Just because you are legally allowed to pick up a branch that has fallen down from a tree, doesn't make this a lumber production facility. It's way off the rails confusing scavenging and agriculture (oh, and the US Forest Service is actually a unit of the Department of Agriculture -- as in, those trees are GROWN to be HARVESTED by US, its owners). I only used wood-gathering as proof that I use these lands as forest, ipso facto they should be tagged that way: landuse=forest. Do you have a problem with that? Let's stick to that, rather than seabeds and wild berries. Your definition is unsuitable, and your interpretation of your unsuitable definition is extreme, and it seems like you're fighting political battles/squabbles on the back of OSM. Whether something is a park or a national reserve should not be subject to your personal interpretation of your country's constitution. Hey, the politics of this is real: I am the owner of these lands (along with hundreds of millions of others), and I take offense that you call this political like I have a squabble to pick on the back of OSM. I don't: I tag OSM with the reality of these public lands as they are defined in our wiki. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you might update the wiki (but please, let's achieve consensus first). Your definition is unsuitable and your interpretation of your unsuitable definition is extreme... Wow, Frederik, those are pretty harsh words to a passionate volunteer like me (a top 50 US contributor), a speaker at our national conferences, present and active for most of the history of this project, responsible for over 10,000 quality edits and somebody who is honestly and truly dedicated to doing the right thing. Are you looking to alienate me from this project? Because words like yours above go a long way towards doing exactly that. Do you mean to do so? To me, a lot of your bordering-on-political-rant argument reads like what we get in other areas of the world where people fight over control of areas; and we tell them: We map the reality on the ground, not some wishful thinking. You might see yourself as the (co)-owner of everything controlled by the US government but if they decide to put up a law, a fence, or a guard keeping you from enjoying what is yours then please take it up with
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Hi, On 08/19/2015 07:25 PM, stevea wrote: This isn't extreme. Your backyard activity is consistent with the definition of a forest: a land which is used for the production of wood/lumber/timber/firewood/pulp/et cetera. There is a problem with this definition; it is too broad. Even the seabed can fulfil some of these uses and we don't want to tag forests in the sea. This definition of a forest is unsuitable for OSM and should not inform our tagging. (Luckily the Wiki, which is not always reliable on these issues, says: A forest or woodland is an area covered by trees., and not: A forest is an area where you could potentially find something to light a fire with.) There is also a problem with your interpretation of this already-unsuitable definition; you say that if land yields wood for any reason, it is used in the production of wood. But I see a difference here between scavenging and agriculture. Just because there's wild berries somewhere, doesn't make the area an orchard. Just because you are legally allowed to pick up a branch that has fallen down from a tree, doesn't make this a lumber production facility. Your definition is unsuitable, and your interpretation of your unsuitable definition is extreme, and it seems like you're fighting political battles/squabbles on the back of OSM. Whether something is a park or a national reserve should not be subject to your personal interpretation of your country's constitution. To me, a lot of your bordering-on-political-rant argument reads like what we get in other areas of the world where people fight over control of areas; and we tell them: We map the reality on the ground, not some wishful thinking. You might see yourself as the (co)-owner of everything controlled by the US government but if they decide to put up a law, a fence, or a guard keeping you from enjoying what is yours then please take it up with them and don't use OSM to map what you would like reality to be. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
John Firebaugh writes: The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily managed for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not true for *any* of the National Forests. Here are some examples of areas within National Forests that are not primarily managed for timber production. OK, so say so where so. (Tag in OSM accordingly). If you wish to subtract from the polygon areas which you are absolutely certain no timber production is allowed or possible, go for it. I won't argue. Your list is a good start. Venturing to assert is a good intention, but unfortunately it doesn't quite rise high enough to merit authoritative tagging in OSM. You might say something similar to me: Steve, tagging an entire USFS as landuse=forest means you KNOW the entirety of the forest to be a forest. Well, I could be wrong in tagging the entirety of the forest as forest, but tagging a (whole) forest as forest is not the worst place to begin. Really, that's where we are: more-or-less at the beginning of tagging USFS polygons (with this discussion). Let's get better at it. That's the whole point of this discussion. (I certainly recognize that). Clicking on Firewood Other Products on http://www.fs.fed.us yields this quotable quote: Collecting firewood or other products for personal use is available on many National Forests So, for any given USFS, one might assume yes, one might assume no. It is possibly true that tagging the ENTIRE polygon as landuse=forest is too much if such firewood collection is only allowed on subsets of it. Well, let's identify the subsets and tag those! It is also possibly true that the entire polygon allows the collection of downed wood. If so, keep the entire polygon tagged landuse=forest. Or be prepared to argue the point (with me, and others) why not. Sub-areas? Identify them! Even if you happen to believe that personal wood-gathering for building a fire constitutes timber production You know what? It does. Call it patently ridiculous if you want to be ridiculed by me, but that timber didn't appear like manna from heaven, it was produced by a forest. I mean, really, how can you say otherwise?! there are many areas within National Forests where it's impossible to do so. We should be tagging the areas within them, where timber production is happening or at least possible, as landuse=forest, not the entire political boundary. Well, perhaps we have a happy compromise here. Tell you what: I'll start with the assumption that a forest should be tagged forest. (That's fair, and/or I'm listening to your alternative proposition). WHEN, WHERE and IF you know a particular area to be expressly NOT a forest, you are perfectly welcome to exclude that subset from said polygon. I'm fine with that. See, everybody: this isn't easy or glib. Let's not pretend it is and try to dismiss others with differing views using ham-handed tactics and harsh words. I'm trying to be polite, upstanding, listening and open-hearted. All of us trying to move forward on this topic should strive to do so, too. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette challenge - fix railway crossings
On 8/4/2015 4:59 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: Also, please even if you see the crossing rendered, do go in and check, because I have seen more than once that the crossing node is not a shared node between way and rail. (Hint, use 'j' to join node to way and 'm' to merge nodes that are (almost) on top of each other.) I noticed something interesting about JOSM - if I select an intersection that may or may not have 2 duplicate nodes, in some cases where there were 2 nodes, the JOSM 'M' command has no effect the first time. Now I always watch and try again if the merge was ignored. But that can be another post-challenge fixup - duplicate nodes on rail crossing. Other notes: Please don't (C)ombine sections of railway unless there is a good reason. I don't know if anyone is combining currently, but there was a long span across South Dakota spanning 2 counties and 400 nodes which was shifted (perhaps to correct a local problem). Mappers fixed various crossings, and the long way was shifted 2 more times. I finally just manually reviewed and fixed the entire shifted way. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33235552 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:22 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: John Firebaugh writes: The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily managed for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not true for *any* of the National Forests. Here are some examples of areas within National Forests that are not primarily managed for timber production. OK, so say so where so. (Tag in OSM accordingly). If you wish to subtract from the polygon areas which you are absolutely certain no timber production is allowed or possible, go for it. It wouldn't be correct to exclude areas where no timber production is allowed or possible from the multipolygon indicating the political boundaries of a National Forest. That would mark such areas as not included inside the boundaries, when in fact they are included. There should be (at least) two separate entities in the database. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily managed for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not true for *any* of the National Forests. Here are some examples of areas within National Forests that are not primarily managed for timber production. http://julialanning.com/files/2011/09/A-Plains-Rainier-RSZ.jpg This is a pumice field in the Plains of Abraham near Mt. St. Helens. It's not producing timber, and is not being managed to so as to do so any time soon. Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument lies within Gifford Pinchot National Forest. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/6507-ShastaLakeFull.jpg Shasta Lake, part of Shasta-Trinity National Forest, is the largest man-made lake in California -- 4,552,000 acre·ft at full pool, though significantly diminished as a result of the drought. None of the lake area is being primarily or even partially managed for timber production. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Mendenhall_Glacier_%28Winter%29.jpg It won't be possible to produce timber in the area currently covered by the Mendenhall Glacier, in Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area, a unit of the Tongass National Forest, until global warming significantly advances its melting. It may be sooner than we think, but not today! http://timberlinetrails.net/sitebuilder/Photos/Whitney/EastFaceRoute.jpg The East Face of Mt Whitney, in Inyo National Forest, features one of the world's classic rock climbs. The route lies entirely above 13,000 feet, and climbers on it will be hard pressed to find any substantial vegetation at all, let alone anything that could be used to produce timber -- or even firewood. Even if you happen to believe that personal wood-gathering for building a fire constitutes timber production -- and I, like Frederik, think that this definition is patently ridiculous -- there are many areas within National Forests where it's impossible to do so. We should be tagging the areas within them, where timber production is happening or at least possible, as landuse=forest, not the entire political boundary. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:57 AM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: On 08/19/2015 07:25 PM, stevea wrote: This isn't extreme. Your backyard activity is consistent with the definition of a forest: a land which is used for the production of wood/lumber/timber/firewood/pulp/et cetera. Frederik, Frederik, Frederik...where do I begin?! According to our wiki, which I DO follow when there is ambiguity or any question about what or whether I should map something, landuse=forest is used to mark areas of land managed for forestry. As I have said here before (recently), this is EXACTLY, PRECISELY what a USFS national forest is. If we change what tags mean in this project, we ought to have a better set of tags to use instead, and we are some distance from that. There is a problem with this definition; it is too broad. I use the wiki definition I note above. Consistently. Even on polygons from local zoning/cadastral data marked as Timber Production in my county. Whether there is active felling of trees or not. The heart of the matter here is quite likely that the wiki definition for forest is overloaded: OSM uses at least four different interpretations as the wiki outlines. A solution to this problem might start with consensus-based re-definition, followed by consistent (worldwide) application of the new method, and rendering support to see what we have done. That's a lot of work we ought to get started doing. Even the seabed can fulfil some of these uses and we don't want to tag forests in the sea. What the heck? I know of no trees growing on the seabed! (Although if there were an odd tree, say near the shoreline of the sea, I agree with a natural=tree node there -- but I don't think I've ever seen one). This definition of a forest is unsuitable for OSM and should not inform our tagging. (Luckily the Wiki, which is not always reliable on these issues, says: A forest or woodland is an area covered by trees., and not: A forest is an area where you could potentially find something to light a fire with.) Please don't twist what I say, conflate my meanings or read into what I have written, as it appears you have. What I have done is apply the wiki definition (area of land managed for forestry) to USFS polygons. Stick to that and tell me I'm wrong, because I don't believe I am by that definition and application. There is also a problem with your interpretation of this already-unsuitable definition; you say that if land yields wood for any reason, it is used in the production of wood. But I see a difference here between scavenging and agriculture. Just because there's wild berries somewhere, doesn't make the area an orchard. Just because you are legally allowed to pick up a branch that
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
-Original Message- From: stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 11:22 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Cc: John Firebaugh Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests Well, perhaps we have a happy compromise here. Tell you what: I'll start with the assumption that a forest should be tagged forest. (That's fair, and/or I'm listening to your alternative proposition). WHEN, WHERE and IF you know a particular area to be expressly NOT a forest, you are perfectly welcome to exclude that subset from said polygon. I'm fine with that. SteveA California Hello, I have another suggestion, how about we do not assume. We seem to be in agreement (vast majority) about boundary=protected_area being the only tag that should for sure be applied to every National Forest. Please don't tag Pike National Forest with landuse=forest because some subsets have already been tagged (where you can see timber harvesting 'scars' in the imagery) and I have ground verified - by seeing signs (sorry don't have a picture) - but (paraphrased) they say fuel wood gathering by permit only and if you'd like you can contact the districts for the designated areas where it is allowed but shouldn't be mapped the other way around because it is a very small subset of Pike. Cheers, =Russ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
