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

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

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

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

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