Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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 proven 
otherwise.  This is the Department of Agriculture’s land (mine, ours) that I’m 
on.  Those fallen branches are mine, and will make both me and my tea warm, 
perhaps even hot if I care to go there.

Sure, contacting the local office of the national forest is the best, local, 
“today” knowledge.  But a national forest is a national forest is a national 
forest.

I am an adult am the owner of these lands, along with millions of others.  
Impassable trails and starting a fire don’t scare me.

Go ahead and consider landuse=forest as useless, that will go down like the 
Hindenburg.

SteveA
California

> On May 10, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:
> I think that the landuse=forest tag as you describe it here is close to 
> useless for the purposes of OSM. First of all, the areas that the US Forest 
> Service (or similar state agency) allows timber to be harvested from is going 
> to change, probably at least on a yearly basis, as the agencies manage the 
> lands under their control. Second of all, the information on where timber 
> harvesting is currently allowed may not be public information since it's part 
> of a commercial contract with a private business (I could be wrong through). 
> Third, that sort of information is probably of little use to the general 
> public anyway since only those companies with the necessary permits would be 
> allowed to harvest timber anyway.  And no, gathering up dead wood from the 
> forest floor for a campfire does not count in my book as timber harvesting.
> 
> If you were planning a hike through a National Forest and wanted to avoid 
> areas that were actively being harvested, you'd be much better off contacting 
> the US Forest Service directly anyway as they'd be able to inform you about 
> other issues with your hiking plans like recent landslides that made trails 
> impassable, wildfires, etc.
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Ollie
> 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Jeffrey Ollie]

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 convince me) that
> harvesting of wood is allowed in those specific areas where there is
> exactly this sort of tree cover.  Although, I might evolve further still to
> be convinced to use a landcover tag (instead) if/as this becomes better
> developed.  The landcover tag becoming more clearly rendered would likely
> help here.
>

I think that the landuse=forest tag as you describe it here is close to
useless for the purposes of OSM. First of all, the areas that the US Forest
Service (or similar state agency) allows timber to be harvested from is
going to change, probably at least on a yearly basis, as the agencies
manage the lands under their control. Second of all, the information on
where timber harvesting is currently allowed may not be public information
since it's part of a commercial contract with a private business (I could
be wrong through). Third, that sort of information is probably of little
use to the general public anyway since only those companies with the
necessary permits would be allowed to harvest timber anyway.  And no,
gathering up dead wood from the forest floor for a campfire does not count
in my book as timber harvesting.

If you were planning a hike through a National Forest and wanted to avoid
areas that were actively being harvested, you'd be much better off
contacting the US Forest Service directly anyway as they'd be able to
inform you about other issues with your hiking plans like recent landslides
that made trails impassable, wildfires, etc.

-- 
Jeff Ollie
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Russell Deffner]

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> 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 100% certain:  in a US National Forest, I can gather downed wood and 
build a fire with it.  (If there IS any downed wood, and it is safe to build a 
fire).  I cannot tear off or cut off low branches and do the same.  I could if 
I had a USFS timber permit, but that is (usually) beyond the scope of what I’m 
talking about:  a citizen-owner who might be camping for a night or three and 
wants to stay warm and boil water for tea.  The cutting of standing trees, 
if/when/as allowed, does make a “treed” area a forest, I believe we would all 
agree.  However, while the casual gathering of downed wood does, too (perhaps 
less agreement here, but I do assert this), the cutting of standing trees is a 
more intense sort of forestry.  So, both the individual (human) of gathering of 
downed wood makes a land a forest, as does the (usually permitted and/or 
notified to the general public that this activity is occurring) more intensive 
felling of entire trees (up to and including clear-cutting the whole lot of 
them on the entirety of the polygon denoted as landuse=forest).

> In which case, why is my backyard, from which I gather fallen branches for 
> firewood, any different from a landuse perspective, than a National Forest? 
> What about a private campground, open to the paying public, where they allow 
> the gathering of fallen branches for firewood? I don't understand how 
> ownership should change how landuse is classified. 

My answer falls roughly into the realm of “your backyard is part of your 
property, with a residential house upon it, so it is therefore (primarily) 
residential.”  I do not disagree with you (meaning I agree with you) that 
collecting fallen branches in your backyard to build a fire in your fireplace 
isn’t TOO different than what might be done at a campsite upon USFS land.  But 
YOUR land is a residence, with an incidental use of you collecting wood to 
burn.  It’s a “primary vs. ancillary” argument:  residential is primary.

As for a private (open to the public who pays) campground where I can collect 
firewood?  Again, as tourism=camp_site seems like the overwhelmingly primary 
landuse here, that how I would tag the enclosing polygon.  As landuse and 
tourism do not conflict as tags, I see no terrible conflict in additionally 
tagging landuse=forest if it really is the case that you can collect downed 
wood and build a campfire.  As that seems unusual (but possible) I personally 
also would add a note tag of “This isn’t a true timberland in the usual sense 
of landuse=forest but this campground does allow the collection of downed wood 
for campfires.”

Multiple tagging like this is quite acceptable in OSM.  An example is 
railway=abandoned which is also tagged with highway=cycleway (or 
highway=bridleway) for a “Rails To Trails” abandoned railway which has been 
converted into a bike path (or horse trail).  It is both, so it is OK to tag it 
with both.

It isn’t necessarily ownership that makes the determination, it is the primary 
use of the land which should guide our choice for the value of 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

[Mike Thompson]

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
> disagreement that we seem to have ironed out.
>
No problem, glad we have it worked out.

>
>
> I strongly believe (and have asserted here many times) that because my
> national forests allow me to collect downed wood and start a campfire (not
> always, but enough of the time that I consider this a generally true fact
> in our national forests) that “gathering of fallen branches for firewood”
> meets the definition of “forestry.”  Very, very small scale (individual
> human being!) forestry, though forestry nonetheless.  Importantly, I (and
> others) feel strongly that OSM should support this with clear rendering, so
> it can be seen where it is possible to do this.  As the song goes:  “This
> land is your land, this land is my land, from the redwood forests…”.
>
Ok, you are talking about gathering of fallen branches, not just cutting of
standing trees. In which case, why is my backyard, from which I gather
fallen branches for firewood, any different from a landuse perspective,
than a National Forest? What about a private campground, open to the paying
public, where they allow the gathering of fallen branches for firewood? I
don't understand how ownership should change how landuse is classified.

>
>
> > We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to
>> represent:
>> > * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
>> natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree
>> on.
>>
>> Yes, I agree, but a fair bit more evolution, description and
>> full-fleshing out of semantics (and very likely, real rendering) must be
>> established for the landcover tag before we get nothing but utter confusion
>> using it.
>>
> Fleshing out is good, but I think the community is close.
>
>
> Well, “closer,” yes.  Close, I respectfully disagree.  We need a
> super-terrificly written (very clear) wiki page, we really ought to have at
> least a plan for how this will be rendered in mapnik (if not outright
> rendering already beginning) and we might have some serious biologists
> and/or botanists and/or forestry folks make thoughtful contributions to a
> highly-developed tagging scheme.  I don’t believe we are there yet.
>
I agree there is room for improvement.  BTW, this publication may be
useful: http://www.pbcgis.com/data_basics/anderson.pdf


>
> Again:  GOOD!  This is awesome discussion, and I want to declare my
> ridiculous enthusiasm for this project and how I see it continually
> progressing.
>
Yes! We are making progress!

Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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 excluding the 
> gathering of fallen branches for firewood from the definition of forestry? 
> That might be helpful: forestry = any place where, with the necessary 
> permits, one may cut down a tree for the some economic use (i.e. not just to 
> get rid of the tree).  I still think it is broad, but it excludes the case 
> where someone is just picking a few sticks off the ground to make a campfire.

The number of double negatives (can’t, excluding..from the definition, not just 
to get rid of, excludes the case…) in here make me go, “Ummm.”

I strongly believe (and have asserted here many times) that because my national 
forests allow me to collect downed wood and start a campfire (not always, but 
enough of the time that I consider this a generally true fact in our national 
forests) that “gathering of fallen branches for firewood” meets the definition 
of “forestry.”  Very, very small scale (individual human being!) forestry, 
though forestry nonetheless.  Importantly, I (and others) feel strongly that 
OSM should support this with clear rendering, so it can be seen where it is 
possible to do this.  As the song goes:  “This land is your land, this land is 
my land, from the redwood forests…”.

> > We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
> > * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged 
> > natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree 
> > on.
> 
> Yes, I agree, but a fair bit more evolution, description and full-fleshing 
> out of semantics (and very likely, real rendering) must be established for 
> the landcover tag before we get nothing but utter confusion using it.
> Fleshing out is good, but I think the community is close.

Well, “closer,” yes.  Close, I respectfully disagree.  We need a 
super-terrificly written (very clear) wiki page, we really ought to have at 
least a plan for how this will be rendered in mapnik (if not outright rendering 
already beginning) and we might have some serious biologists and/or botanists 
and/or forestry folks make thoughtful contributions to a highly-developed 
tagging scheme.  I don’t believe we are there yet.

> landcover=trees means anywhere there are standing plants which are classified 
> as trees. Fleshing out might include how dense the trees have to be, and 
> whether standing deadwood counts as “trees"

Again:  GOOD!  This is awesome discussion, and I want to declare my ridiculous 
enthusiasm for this project and how I see it continually progressing.

SteveA
California___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Mike Thompson]

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 active commercial cultivation
> of trees for timber, pulp or similar products. Steve things otherwise, and
> I respect his point of view and appreciate how he is making his argument.
> However, if we go with a much less specific definition, such as anywhere
> someone can gather camp fire wood, then any land where there is a tree
> (with the exception of designated wilderness areas, etc) become
> landuse=forest.
>
> Mmm, hang on, Mike.  When you say “Steve thinks otherwise,” I disagree:
> this is exactly what I think.  Again, what we are agreeing to here is that
> landuse=forest means “active cultivation of trees for timber, pulp or
> similar products.”  (I leave out your choice of the word “commercial”
> because there is our local Demonstration State Forest which is
> publicly-owned and not all of its products are commercial, some being used
> for other state/public projects, for example.  But let’s not get lost in
> the weeds quibbling).
>
> You also mention a “much less specific definition, such as anywhere
> someone can gather campfire wood” equating to “any land where there is a
> tree” is also landuse=forest.  I’ll go real slow here.  In OSM, a USFS can
> correctly has boundary (multi)polygon(s) denoted with
> boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6.  We agree.  A USFS is not
> always 100% covered with trees, so delineating it with landuse=forest is
> not correct.  We agree.  (This didn’t used to be true, but OSM has
> evolved).  A USFS often, but not always, and not in every square meter of
> it, allows the collection of downed wood (where trees throw off downed
> wood) which can be collected by its owner (US citizens/nationals), and even
> (when safe) this wood can be used to build a fire.  We agree.
>
> These facts are different than your assertion of “anywhere someone can
> gather campfire wood.”  I can do that in my backyard, but I don’t tag it
> landuse=forest, nor should I.  These facts are different than “any land
> where there is a tree.”  “There is a tree” in my local city park, but I
> can’t cut it down and start a campfire, so I don’t tag landuse=forest
> there.  “There is a tree” (for sale) at the local plant nursery, but
> neither is that a commercial forest, so I shouldn’t tag it as one.
>
Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint.


"but I can't cut it down and start a campfire" - Are you excluding the
gathering of fallen branches for firewood from the definition of forestry?
That might be helpful: forestry = any place where, with the necessary
permits, one may cut down a tree for the some economic use (i.e. not just
to get rid of the tree).  I still think it is broad, but it excludes the
case where someone is just picking a few sticks off the ground to make a
campfire.


> > We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to
> represent:
> > * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
> natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree
> on.
>
> Yes, I agree, but a fair bit more evolution, description and full-fleshing
> out of semantics (and very likely, real rendering) must be established for
> the landcover tag before we get nothing but utter confusion using it.
>
Fleshing out is good, but I think the community is close.  landcover=trees
means anywhere there are standing plants which are classified as trees.
Fleshing out might include how dense the trees have to be, and whether
standing deadwood counts as "trees"

Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Elliott Plack]

Charlotte,

I agree that the "tree(s)" definition is a bit broad. That was just meant
as an example of the things that landcover might include. I once spent a
month hiking around Joshua Tree NP, such a cool area!

Following the typical OSM tagging hierachy, in your cases you'd have

landcover=shurb (or trees, sounds like there is some academic disagreement
there).
natural=desert
shrub=joshua_tree;suguaros

There is definitely a ton of ambiguity insofar as I've only spent a short
time thinking about this. I think that a wikitable with lots of examples
would help the community, then we'd get those reference documents into the
popular editor tools that support a wiki link!

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM Charlotte Wolter 
wrote:

> Elliott,
>
> But, how do you define a "tree"?
> As someone who lives in a desert environment, the word "tree" can
> be defined quite differently from the East Coast.
> Would you call Joshua Trees "trees"? In aerial photography they
> look like widely spaced shrubs. What about suguaros? They're big, and most
> biologists would define them as trees, though they also look like shrubs on
> aerial photography. And, how about our Southern California chaparral or the
> pinyon-juniper all over the Southwest, both of which are smaller than 15
> feet tall? These "trees" cover thousands of square miles in the West.
> If we use land cover, I think there has to be a lot of guidance
> and examples in order for people to be consistent.
>
> Charlotte
>
>
> At 10:29 AM 5/10/2016, you 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 regen, and
> we can now see the beautiful, detailed forest tracing that someone did
> around the ski slopes. This is an example of why blanketing a few hundred
> thousand square miles is not appropriate. Here is a screenshot:Â
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xgtiodzjvhq1l4/2016-05-10%2013_14_51-OpenStreetMap.png?dl=0
>
> Now, I gave this some more thought, and I do tend to agree with Steve A
> that landuse=forest indicates an area designated by humans for a particular
> use. For instance, landuse=residential is to define an area that is
> residential in nature, landuse=cemetery is a cemetery. Keeping with that
> trend, I think that the semantics of the tag are aligned with a managed
> forest. That said, we need to document this and then move to start using a
> new set of tags for landcover=*, to map areas covered with whatever it is,
> regardless of whether humans put them there or not. landcover=trees,
> landcover=grass, landcover=rocks, etc. These tags could be on
> landuse=forest areas, or alone. I think we should resurrect the landcover
> proposal!
>
>
>
> Next step would be change landuse=forest to landcover=trees where
> appropriate.
>
> That is the only way I think we as a community can hope to resolve this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Elliott
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:53 PM Russell Deffner 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Steve and all,
>
> Â
>
> I think you are correct that we’re trying to build consensus, I think
> this is a good time to review the ‘OSM best practices/rule(s) of
> thumb’.  I would counter-argue that a ‘blanket use of
> landuse=forest’ does not meet the ‘verifiable rule/guideline’ [1];
> it’s not something you can easily observe when there is not active timber
> harvesting. Also, we know that not only is National Forest land used for
> timber production, but also mushroom/berry harvesting, hunting, recreation,
> etc., etc. – so we also should not ‘blanket’ national forestt with
> other tags, but try to accurately/verifiably show things. If you look at
> the discussion page for the proposed landcover features [2] it is a good
> representative of many of these ‘natural’ vs. landuse vs. vegetation
> cover, etc. As I have said in previous threads on this topic – please have
> patience with Pike National Forest – Iâ€I’ve been working on this and
> have verified that Pike does not allow timber harvesting except by permit
> in very small designation sub-sections of the forest, which rotate/change
> frequently, so unless we are talking about ‘importing those boundaries’
> then I’m slowly working on tagging ‘forested’/areas with trees as
> natural=wood (i.e. that I believe meets ‘verifiability’ – i.e. 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:stevea...@softworkers.com
> ]
>
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 3:29 PM
>
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
>
> Â
>
> Mike Thompson writes:
>
> 1) I don't know 

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> 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? I'm thinking of the chaparral of 
> Southern California, the Joshua Tree forests in the Mohave desert and the 
> Saguaro forests of southern Arizona. They would meet a biologist's definition 
> of "forest.”

I AM going for consistency, even as I know it to be sometimes ridiculed as the 
foolish hobgoblin of small minds.  However, consistency is an absolute 
necessity in a project as wide as OSM, with its millions of contributors, huge 
number of wiki pages offering helpful tagging instructions and shred of hope 
for sanity going forward.

Your examples are excellent edge cases of “well, what do we do HERE?”  OSM does 
cause us to examine those sorts of things from time to time, and I’m very glad 
that it does and I’m very glad that OSM has discussions like this, talk pages, 
wikis, voting, and especially, free-form tagging.  All of these allow us to 
evolve into something better, and not only have we done that, we will continue 
to do so.

It is fascinating to consider a scrub desert or a large area where huge cacti 
are a dominant plant species and ask myself (ourselves):  is this a forest?  
What IS this?  These are awesome questions and I do not have an immediate 
answer.  I am very glad you ask them.

> Part of the problem is a concept of "forest" and "land cover" based 
> on the East Coast and Europe. I know you're a Californian, so you must see 
> the difference.

I do.  OSM tagging really must evolve to cover our entire planet Earth.  OK, 
sure, we started in Europe, but we are quite the worldwide project now.  Let 
our tagging catch up to that, as it must.

> I do like the idea of using boundary=protected_area.

As I said, it “came to the rescue” and good, thoughtful tagging with 
well-established semantics can and will do exactly this again in the future.  
Yes!

> By the way, I wonder about the writer below who said the city of Reno 
> is within the national forest. Surrounded by it, maybe, like Flagstaff, Ariz. 
> (Coconino NF), but I guarantee it's not actually part of the federal forest. 
> Maybe we need to get more accurate boundaries.

Yeah, me, too.  I didn’t look at those specific examples in OSM, but your 
characterizations are correct and it may be that OSM needs much better tagging 
if it is asserted that large cities are found WITHIN the boundaries of US 
National Forests:  I strongly believe they are not, regardless of whether OSM 
tags them that way.  Do we have errors in our map?  Yes.  Can and do we correct 
them?  Yes, we do.  OSM simply continues to get better and better.  Partly due 
to discussions like these.

SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> 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 otherwise, and I respect 
> his point of view and appreciate how he is making his argument.  However, if 
> we go with a much less specific definition, such as anywhere someone can 
> gather camp fire wood, then any land where there is a tree (with the 
> exception of designated wilderness areas, etc) become landuse=forest.

Mmm, hang on, Mike.  When you say “Steve thinks otherwise,” I disagree:  this 
is exactly what I think.  Again, what we are agreeing to here is that 
landuse=forest means “active cultivation of trees for timber, pulp or similar 
products.”  (I leave out your choice of the word “commercial” because there is 
our local Demonstration State Forest which is publicly-owned and not all of its 
products are commercial, some being used for other state/public projects, for 
example.  But let’s not get lost in the weeds quibbling).

You also mention a “much less specific definition, such as anywhere someone can 
gather campfire wood” equating to “any land where there is a tree” is also 
landuse=forest.  I’ll go real slow here.  In OSM, a USFS can correctly has 
boundary (multi)polygon(s) denoted with boundary=protected_area and 
protect_class=6.  We agree.  A USFS is not always 100% covered with trees, so 
delineating it with landuse=forest is not correct.  We agree.  (This didn’t 
used to be true, but OSM has evolved).  A USFS often, but not always, and not 
in every square meter of it, allows the collection of downed wood (where trees 
throw off downed wood) which can be collected by its owner (US 
citizens/nationals), and even (when safe) this wood can be used to build a 
fire.  We agree.

These facts are different than your assertion of “anywhere someone can gather 
campfire wood.”  I can do that in my backyard, but I don’t tag it 
landuse=forest, nor should I.  These facts are different than “any land where 
there is a tree.”  “There is a tree” in my local city park, but I can’t cut it 
down and start a campfire, so I don’t tag landuse=forest there.  “There is a 
tree” (for sale) at the local plant nursery, but neither is that a commercial 
forest, so I shouldn’t tag it as one.

> We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
> * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged 
> natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree on.

Yes, I agree, but a fair bit more evolution, description and full-fleshing out 
of semantics (and very likely, real rendering) must be established for the 
landcover tag before we get nothing but utter confusion using it.

> * Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest 
> Service) - seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on 
> this one.

We agree:  the boundary=protected_area tag (and others which are associated, 
like ownership=public, admin_level and so on) came to the rescue here.

>  * How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural 
> secondary growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words, 
> all treed areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and 
> tags indicating the origin of the trees be added where this information is 
> known.

I like this.  I have seen tagging which attempts to delineate between, for 
example deciduous vs. evergreen or different biota of plant species, but this 
can be a very useful semantic to capture with appropriate tagging.

> * How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus on 
> a more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.

It is entirely possible that landuse=forest to denote timberland is just a 
starting place.  (But it is an important one, and crucially, it is 
well-established within the semantics of OSM tagging).

Good, GOOD!

SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Mike Thompson]

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 regen, and
> we can now see the beautiful, detailed forest tracing that someone did
> around the ski slopes. This is an example of why blanketing a few hundred
> thousand square miles is not appropriate. Here is a screenshot:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xgtiodzjvhq1l4/2016-05-10%2013_14_51-OpenStreetMap.png?dl=0
>
Nice!

>
> Now, I gave this some more thought, and I do tend to agree with Steve A
> that landuse=forest indicates an area designated by humans for a particular
> use.
>
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 otherwise, and
I respect his point of view and appreciate how he is making his argument.
However, if we go with a much less specific definition, such as anywhere
someone can gather camp fire wood, then any land where there is a tree
(with the exception of designated wilderness areas, etc) become
landuse=forest.

We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
* What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree
on.
* Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest
Service) - seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on
this one.
* How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural
secondary growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words,
all treed areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and
tags indicating the origin of the trees be added where this information is
known.
* How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus
on a more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.

Mike

>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Elliott Plack]

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 regen, and
we can now see the beautiful, detailed forest tracing that someone did
around the ski slopes. This is an example of why blanketing a few hundred
thousand square miles is not appropriate. Here is a screenshot:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xgtiodzjvhq1l4/2016-05-10%2013_14_51-OpenStreetMap.png?dl=0

Now, I gave this some more thought, and I do tend to agree with Steve A
that landuse=forest indicates an area designated by humans for a particular
use. For instance, landuse=residential is used to define an area that is
residential in nature, landuse=cemetery is a cemetery. Keeping with that
trend, I think that the semantics of the tag are aligned with a managed
forest. That said, we need to document this and then move to start using a
new set of tags for landcover=*, to map areas covered with whatever it is,
regardless of whether humans put them there or not. landcover=trees,
landcover=grass, landcover=rocks, etc. These tags could be on
landuse=forest areas, or alone. I think we should resurrect the landcover
proposal!

Next step would be change landuse=forest to landcover=trees where
appropriate.

That is the only way I think we as a community can hope to resolve this.

Thanks,

Elliott


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:53 PM Russell Deffner 
wrote:

> Hi Steve and all,
>
>
>
> I think you are correct that we’re trying to build consensus, I think this
> is a good time to review the ‘OSM best practices/rule(s) of thumb’.  I
> would counter-argue that a ‘blanket use of landuse=forest’ does not meet
> the ‘verifiable rule/guideline’ [1]; it’s not something you can easily
> observe when there is not active timber harvesting. Also, we know that not
> only is National Forest land used for timber production, but also
> mushroom/berry harvesting, hunting, recreation, etc., etc. – so we also
> should not ‘blanket’ national forest with other tags, but try to
> accurately/verifiably show things. If you look at the discussion page for
> the proposed landcover features [2] it is a good representative of many of
> these ‘natural’ vs. landuse vs. vegetation cover, etc. As I have said in
> previous threads on this topic – please have patience with Pike National
> Forest – I’ve been working on this and have verified that Pike does not
> allow timber harvesting except by permit in very small designation
> sub-sections of the forest, which rotate/change frequently, so unless we
> are talking about ‘importing those boundaries’ then I’m slowly working on
> tagging ‘forested’/areas with trees as natural=wood (i.e. that I believe
> meets ‘verifiability’ – i.e. you can pretty well see forest edge/tree line
> in imagery).
>
> =Russ
>
>
>
> [1] 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
>
>
> *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:  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 safely conclude it is not natural=wood (unless
> there was "illegal logging” going on, and that DOES happen) but rather that
> it is landuse=forest.  THEN, there is where you know for a fact (from facts
> not on-the-ground, but perhaps from ownership data, signage like “Welcome
> to Sierra National Forest” or other sources) that THIS IS a real, live
> forest, in the sense OSM intends to mean here (landuse=forest implies
> timber harvesting now or at some point in the future).
>
>
>
> 2) While the English word "natural" might suggest this, we use "natural"
> for other things that man has a hand in creating or modifying, e.g.
> natural=water for a man made reservoir.
>
>
>
> Again, I’ll grant you this, but it only shows that OSM’s tagging is not
> always internally consistent.  I can live with that.  What is required (and
> “more clear" in the case of natural=water) is the understanding that
> consensus has emerged for natural=water:  this gets tagged on bodies of
> water which are both natural and man-made, and that’s OK, and we don’t lose
> sleep over it or look for more consistency.  It’s like an exception to a
> rule of grammar:  you just learn it, and say “shucks” that there are such
> things as grammatical exceptions.
>
>
>
> I’m doing my very best to listen, and it seems many others are, too.
> Listening is the heart of building consensus.  Let us not also become
> entrenched in minor exceptions or established conventions adding 

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

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 time, and so I DID tag like this.  But this was back in 
2010-12 or so.  Meanwhile, the boundary=protected_area tag developed and 
evolved, and now I tag US National Forests with this (when I do) along with 
protect_class=6 (or protect_class=1b on Wilderness areas).  This is widely 
accepted in OSM in the USA.

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 convince me) that harvesting of wood is 
allowed in those specific areas where there is exactly this sort of tree cover. 
 Although, I might evolve further still to be convinced to use a landcover tag 
(instead) if/as this becomes better developed.  The landcover tag becoming more 
clearly rendered would likely help here.

> 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 boundary to me than anything - it designates an 
> area with active federal management and a stricter set of laws involving 
> development, etc. Half of Reno, NV where I reside is technically inside the 
> Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest boundary, including the urban center. There 
> is certainly nothing that qualifies as a 'forest' here in the traditional 
> sense. Even many parcels just outside of urbanized areas of Reno that are 
> both within the national forest boundary and owned by the forest service have 
> no tree cover whatsoever, and couldn't possibly qualify for any definition of 
> a forest involving trees.
> 
> Personally I think the problem here is a poor definition of 'landuse=forest’.

I don’t think it is poor at all:  I think the definition of landuse=forest is 
clear:  "timberland” in a single word, an area where present or near-future 
harvesting of trees/wood is taking place.  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).

OSM evolved.  From its earlier days of using the landuse=forest tag to mark the 
boundary of a US National Forest, we evolved to say “no, plenty of national 
forests are covered by scrub, rocks, no trees whatsoever, craggy mountains or 
just bare ground, so landuse=forest around the whole thing just isn’t correct.” 
 Yes, the landcover tag was also discussed as an alternative, but this remains 
less clear than the boundary=protected_area solution that has emerged, and 
which has solid consensus upholding it.

> Does this mean land used for timber production? I see a lot of on-the-ground 
> verifiability issues with that sort of definition. Should it imply a large, 
> managed area of trees? As explained earlier, there are many federally owned 
> and managed 'national forest' areas with no tree cover whatsoever. I would be 
> partial to a definition of 'land owned directly managed by a forestry 
> service' - forestry land - but then mapping something like that would require 
> parcel-level imports since not every piece of land owned by the forest 
> service is clearly marked on the ground.

Yes, ground-truth verifiability is a strong tenet of OSM.  Then, there is “what 
you know and can otherwise show” or “what simply is true.”  For example, near 
here is the Soquel State Demonstration Forest.  100% of it is landuse=forest, 
and correctly so.  It isn’t just that the word “Forest” is in its name, it is 
demonstrably a forest (timber production area) that the state of California 
declares as such (and is mighty proud of due to its environmental and 
cutting-edge forestry practices).  THAT is something deserving of the tag 
landuse=forest, no question about it.  And while it is in public ownership, 
there are also vast tracts of land near here known as “Big Creek Forests” which 
are private timberland.  They are also huge areas covered with trees, but 
because of outstanding (private, this time) stewardship, the logging which 
takes place upon them is quite light indeed:  you may never see a stump or hear 
a chainsaw as you attempt to ground-truth these facts.  That doesn’t make them 
“not a forest,” they are.  Trees grow rather slowly, remember, not being ready 
for harvest after decades or even centuries.

> I personally only use 'natural=wood' anymore, since at the very least it is 
> easy to verify that trees exist. I don't care much for the 'original growth' 
> definition of 'natural=tree' either due to verifiability issues. Much of the 
> Lake Tahoe is second-growth forest, but