Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

deleted my polygon around Copper :( =Russ -Original Message- From: Charlotte Wolter [mailto:techl...@techlady.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:22 PM To: Talk-US@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests Russ, I think you have come closest to a good

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Russ, I think you have come closest to a good general description of something with multiple uses. Yes, above all, U.S. national forests are protected. So, does that mean that tagging is boundary=protected_area and landuse=conservation, along with, of course, tagging of

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On 05/10/2016 01:28 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: What muddied the waters is whether or not this should apply to a US National Forest. I believe it is NOW widely accepted that we should not do that on a USFS administrative boundary (instead using boundary=protected_area, protect_class=6). I

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Hi Greg and all, Sorry, I either need a refund on that Forestry degree or have to call this out as incorrect: Perhaps the problem here is the multiple roles that the the US Forest Service plays. Note that that name is from the olden days. Now the service is know as the National Park

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:28 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > Bradley White writes: > > Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be > tagged with national forest boundaries. > > > I would like to be clear,

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Eternal vigilance is what liberty costs. I maintain that my forests are my forests. Maybe a sign or current campfire regulations prevent me from collecting downed wood, but if I’m camping in a National Forest (and I’m a citizen or a national) I’m going to assume that is true until it is

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:28 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > > As an aside, I STILL believe that it is/would be correct WITHIN this > boundary to ALSO tag landuse=forest where it is KNOWN (ground truth is > best, but public data, signage or other sources could

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Just to bring in some ‘ground verification’, here are the signs you find around Pike: Just a few minute detour from going to the Post Office :) =Russ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson > wrote: > Ok, you are talking about gathering of fallen branches, not just cutting of > standing trees. I could be wrong about this, so I will say what I strongly believe to be true, but am not

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:32 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint. > > > Not a problem. Sorry if I sounded harsh while doing so. Just a minor >

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint. Not a problem. Sorry if I sounded harsh while doing so. Just a minor disagreement that we seem to have ironed out. > "but I can't cut it down and start a campfire" - Are you

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:15 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > > > On May 10, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that > this tag is only appropriate where there is

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

. you can > pretty well see forest edge/tree line in imagery). > > =Russ > > Â > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability > > [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landcover > > Â > > From: OSM Volunteer stevea [ mailto:steve

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > Steve, I see your argument. You're going for consistency, which is usually a > good thing. > But, what if the land "cover" is scattered trees that are the size of > large shrubs in a desert environment?

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that this > tag is only appropriate where there is active commercial cultivation of trees > for timber, pulp or similar products. Steve things

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Thanks for the continued discussion. It seems that one of you removed the > offending landuse that I mentioned in my email yesterday (from an import > that was not attributed). As a result, the tiles have begun to

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability > > [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landcover > > > > *From:* OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2016 3:29 PM > *To:* talk-us@openstreetmap.org > >

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Bradley White > writes: > Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be > tagged with national forest boundaries. I would like to be clear, here: I USED TO believe this, as it was the “best practice” at the

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

: OSM Volunteer stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 3:29 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests Mike Thompson writes: 1) I don't know how anyone would able to tell this from simple on the ground observation. Granted

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be tagged with national forest boundaries. That something is within a national forest boundary does not guarantee that it is a managed forest, or even that it has tree cover. A 'national forest' is more an administrative

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Mike Thompson writes: > 1) I don't know how anyone would able to tell this from simple on the ground > observation. Granted: from an on-the-ground observation, a landuse=forest might look very much like a natural=wood. However, if you saw that part of the area had some stumps, you could

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On 8/19/2015 2:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote: I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land cover (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or administrative to clear the confusion. I am also in favor of eliminating the landuse=forest tag at least in its current

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > * OSM Volunteer stevea [160509 20:23]: > > This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a > (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. [..] > > I guess

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

* OSM Volunteer stevea [160509 20:23]: > This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a > (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. [..] I guess everyone would agree with that. The problem is that we (as in "the mappers of

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Russ, Elliott, Kenny and all: This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. Yes, I have notice that mapnik rendering has changed over the years so that other 2-D objects which occupy the same space may yield

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests Looping back to this. I was looking at the town of Breckenridge, Colorado, and the whole things is covered by trees. On some renders, it is just a big green blob over the town. Here it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3724941 This is not right

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Lengthy replies to lengthy post do follow; fair warning. On 08/19/2015 05:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote: In any discussions about land use and land cover, we should look at what organizations have done and how they have mapped ares. For instance, in USGS imagery in JOSM you can see how they

[Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

There is copious documentation on the USFS's definitions regarding LULC, including crosswalks to the various international definitions intended to support global statistics. The USFS's own definition of forest is fairly low bar (10%) and they manage not just for traditional forest production, but

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On 08/19/2015 05:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote: In any discussions about land use and land cover, we should look at what organizations have done and how they have mapped ares. For instance, in USGS imagery in JOSM you can see how they render borders with just a dashed line and let the land cover

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Uncle. Forests are not to be tagged forests. Tag as you like, everybody. We have a lot of work to do in this project. I'm now leaving for a national forest to recreate. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

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. Well, perhaps we have a happy compromise here. Tell you

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On 08/19/2015 11:30 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Me collecting firewood makes this a forest producing timber. Full stop. If I go to the wiki page on landuse I find for landuse=forest For areas with a high density of trees primarily grown for timber. This is also what most

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:16 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Me collecting firewood makes this a forest producing timber. Full stop. So my backyard is a forest now? My backyard has trees, and I collect all of the downed branches and use them when I build fires in my fire pit.

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Jeffrey Ollie replies: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:16 PM, stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.comstevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Me collecting firewood makes this a forest producing timber. Full stop. So my backyard is a forest now? My backyard has trees, and I collect all of the downed

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land cover (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or administrative to clear the confusion. I am also in favor of eliminating the landuse=forest tag at least in its current incarnation and switching any official forested

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On 8/18/2015 10:01 AM, Torsten Karzig wrote: As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Brian May b...@mapwise.com wrote: Also I think its been mentioned the boundary should be tagged as boundary=protected_area which handles the overall mission of national forests is to conserve our forests. However, the issue comes up that there are different

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Tod Fitch writes: We are using British English here and timber appears to mean production of wood for building. See, for example, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/timber You may define casual wood gathering of firewood a timber operation but I am pretty sure the forest

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Aug 18, 2015, at 4:17 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Torsten Karzig wrote: Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for forestry. Now, slow down here. It has been (and is, I argue) quite reasonable to tag National Forests

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Torsten Karzig wrote: As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On 8/18/2015 1:58 PM, Ben Discoe wrote: As someone who has worked on protected areas in OSM globally, it has always been obvious that the landuse tags and the boundary tags serve clear and different purposes. US National Forests are boundaries around land which contain many uses(*), and

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM Torsten Karzig torsten.kar...@web.de wrote: As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:18 PM Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: 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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Just to chime in.. As someone who has worked on protected areas in OSM globally, it has always been obvious that the landuse tags and the boundary tags serve clear and different purposes. US National Forests are boundaries around land which contain many uses(*), and landuse=forest is only one of

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Hi all, I really appreciate the productive discussion that ensued my initial question! In the mean time, a mapper approached me with concerns about my removing the landuse tags from the National Forests in Utah, so I reverted those changes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33419230 -- I

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

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

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! -

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

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:

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

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

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

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

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.

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

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] Tagging National Forests

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